• 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!

U.S. economy bounces back sharply

Last year.

There was a 4 percent drop in GDP last year due to the weather ?

I wonder, prior to the Obama administration's utter destruction of our economy was there ever a 4 percent drop in GDP because of inclement weather ?
 
There was a 4 percent drop in GDP last year due to the weather ?

According to Visbek, there was.

I wonder, prior to the Obama administration's utter destruction of our economy was there ever a 4 percent drop in GDP because of inclement weather ?

Except that the policies Obama Administration, despite their slogans of "hope and change" are no different from those of the past administration.
 
According to Visbek, there was.
Q1 GDP was likely down for several reasons.

1) Yes, bad weather
2) A drop in exports
3) A decline in spending on health care

We should keep in mind that 2014 was the coldest winter in the US since 1979. Most winters fall within seasonal adjustments; this one didn't.

Oh, and keep in mind that it isn't the US government blaming Q1 on the weather. It's economists, bank analysts and others, who are not in the pay of the federal government.

The big bounce in Q2 lends some credence to the weather theory, as personal expenditures jumped 2.5% in Q2 -- presumably due to pent-up demand. Most measures that make up GDP had a substantial increase, though, which suggests a broad-based (albeit again, not especially strong) recovery.

In addition, weeks of indicators have suggested Q2 would be strong. 4% is a bit high, it may get revised down, but it really shouldn't surprise anyone who actually pays attention to economic data.
 
Q1 GDP was likely down for several reasons.

1) Yes, bad weather
2) A drop in exports
3) A decline in spending on health care

We should keep in mind that 2014 was the coldest winter in the US since 1979. Most winters fall within seasonal adjustments; this one didn't.

Oh, and keep in mind that it isn't the US government blaming Q1 on the weather. It's economists, bank analysts and others, who are not in the pay of the federal government.

The big bounce in Q2 lends some credence to the weather theory, as personal expenditures jumped 2.5% in Q2 -- presumably due to pent-up demand. Most measures that make up GDP had a substantial increase, though, which suggests a broad-based (albeit again, not especially strong) recovery.

In addition, weeks of indicators have suggested Q2 would be strong. 4% is a bit high, it may get revised down, but it really shouldn't surprise anyone who actually pays attention to economic data.

Exactly. It's more than plausible that the severe winter was at least a factor in the decline of the GDP. It would be strange if such a winter didn't have some effect on the economy. The other factors you mention are also a part of it.

It's the assertion that the Obama administration is destroying the economy, when the policies have changed so little from the past administration that is a bit hard to swallow for me, and I'm far from being a supporter of the current POTUS.
 
Q1 GDP was likely down for several reasons.

1) Yes, bad weather
2) A drop in exports
3) A decline in spending on health care

We should keep in mind that 2014 was the coldest winter in the US since 1979. Most winters fall within seasonal adjustments; this one didn't.

Oh, and keep in mind that it isn't the US government blaming Q1 on the weather. It's economists, bank analysts and others, who are not in the pay of the federal government.

The big bounce in Q2 lends some credence to the weather theory, as personal expenditures jumped 2.5% in Q2 -- presumably due to pent-up demand. Most measures that make up GDP had a substantial increase, though, which suggests a broad-based (albeit again, not especially strong) recovery.

In addition, weeks of indicators have suggested Q2 would be strong. 4% is a bit high, it may get revised down, but it really shouldn't surprise anyone who actually pays attention to economic data.

Big bounce?

- Domestic corporate earnings have generally disappointed (yes, some multinationals offshore holdings are doing pretty good - but their domestic sides are generally fair at best).

- The unemployment situation is going sideways with almost no hirings in the last four months (since the 'bad weather ended) of full time plus all employment between the important 25-54 age range seeing only minor gains with the vast bulk of the hiring's in the young/seniors/part time areas.

- And the DOW is down since April.

That does not sound like the numbers indicative of a 'big bounce' to me.

They indicate to me a somewhat stagnant economy that - despite almost 7 years of trillions in stimulus and 'Artificially' low interest rates - still cannot stand on it's own two feet.


And remember, that 4% GDP was propped up by over a third by increased inventory.

When the final revision comes through, I think the number will be closer to 2-2.5%.
 
Last edited:
Means nothing...wait for the final revision (then few will pay attention).

They dropped Q1 from +0.1% initially all the way down to -2.1% in th final revision...clearly (IMO) they are either incompetent and/or being influenced.

:agree
 
I love that you see the glass as half full. Me too.

More like 0.1% full, but if that's the best we can do, I guess it's better than being bone dry.
 
I love that you see the glass as half full. Me too.

Yeah, 0.1% is like asking for a glass of water and getting a few drops. Most people would never go back to place that treated them like that. The worst part about this administration is, they act like they've done something great, when they are doing a horrible job.
 
Yeah, 0.1% is like asking for a glass of water and getting a few drops. Most people would never go back to place that treated them like that. The worst part about this administration is, they act like they've done something great, when they are doing a horrible job.

Sure. If we attribute our economic performance to the president, Obummer absolutely sucks.

For that matter, I can't imagine why in the hell we would ever consider voting for another republican POTUS, because at the end of the last republican presidency, we had NEGATIVE growth. Yet some republicans still pretend that Bush wasn't doing a horrible job. Bush was asleep at the wheel, for his entire presidency. I called him the PINO (president in name only).

I guess it's all about picking from the lessor of evils. I suspect that in a couple of more years, we are going to compare the 8 years of Obummer, and the 8 years of Bush, and decide that the 8 years of Obummer ended much better than the 8 years of Bush. thats assuming that our economy doesn't fall apart before then of course.

Now talley up how many recessions started under recent presidents (during my lifetime), by party. Let's see, 6 under republicans, 1 under democrats. Hmm.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Sure.

For that matter, I can't imagine why in the hell we would ever consider voting for another republican POTUS, because at the end of the last republican presidency, we had NEGATIVE growth. Yet some republicans still pretend that Bush wasn't doing a horrible job. Bush was asleep at the wheel, for his entire presidency. I called him the PINO (president in name only).

That's funny, because Clinton left Bush with a recession. Who you gonna vote for now?
 
That's funny, because Clinton left Bush with a recession. Who you gonna vote for now?

Like the first Bush left Clinton with a recession (which ended two months after Clinton took office)? and like the second Bush left O' with a recession (which ended 3 months after Obama took office)?

It amazes me how you criticize Obummer for blaming Bush, then you claim that Clinton is to blame for the first Bush recession (notice that Bush had TWO recessions that started on his watch, the first Bush recession started two months AFTER Bush took office). I'm terrible at spelling, do you know how to spell "hypocrit"?
 
Like the first Bush left Clinton with a recession (which ended two months after Clinton took office)? and like the second Bush left O' with a recession (which ended 3 months after Obama took office)?

It amazes me how you criticize Obummer for blaming Bush, then you claim that Clinton is to blame for the first Bush recession (notice that Bush had TWO recessions that started on his watch, the first Bush recession started two months AFTER Bush took office). I'm terrible at spelling, do you know how to spell "hypocrit"?

Hypocrite.

:2razz:
 
Sure. If we attribute our economic performance to the president, Obummer absolutely sucks.

For that matter, I can't imagine why in the hell we would ever consider voting for another republican POTUS, because at the end of the last republican presidency, we had NEGATIVE growth. Yet some republicans still pretend that Bush wasn't doing a horrible job. Bush was asleep at the wheel, for his entire presidency. I called him the PINO (president in name only).

Well, you may not agree with what he did, I don't agree with it all, but the last thing Bush was was asleep at the wheel!

I guess it's all about picking from the lessor of evils. I suspect that in a couple of more years, we are going to compare the 8 years of Obummer, and the 8 years of Bush, and decide that the 8 years of Obummer ended much better than the 8 years of Bush. thats assuming that our economy doesn't fall apart before then of course.
That's not very likely, since Obama is solidly in last place as far as Presidents go.
 
Well, you may not agree with what he did, I don't agree with it all, but the last thing Bush was was asleep at the wheel!

So he took action to prevent the Great Bush Recession? And surely he was listening to conservative economist Peter Schiff who was trumpeting to the world that the sub-prime mortgage loan market was in a bubble that was going to collapse. So what action did Bush take to prevent that?

And he prevented the 911 attacks? And he killed Bin Laden?

Like I said, he was asleep at the wheel.

That's not very likely, since Obama is solidly in last place as far as Presidents go.

In what respect? Number of lives lost due to terrorism? Number of attacks on US embassies? Number of recessions started on his watch? Number of executive order? Yes, he is last place in all of that.
 
Last edited:
It amazes me how you criticize Obummer for blaming Bush, then you claim that Clinton is to blame for the first Bush recession (notice that Bush had TWO recessions that started on his watch, the first Bush recession started two months AFTER Bush took office). I'm terrible at spelling, do you know how to spell "hypocrit"?

You are not serious, are you? What could Bush possibly have done to cause a recession in 2 months? I gotta hear this one.
 
You are not serious, are you? What could Bush possibly have done to cause a recession in 2 months? I gotta hear this one.

No, I'm not serious at all.

Equally, what could Obama had done to cause the recession that started 15 mths before he took office?

Of course Bush didn't start that recession, but blaming Obama for the Great Bush Recession is equally absurd. You can't see that?

By the way, I voted for Bush, and have never voted for Obama. But I'm just attempting to be reasonable as I really dislike the hypocracy created by partisan politics.
 
No, I'm not serious at all.

Equally, what could Obama had done to cause the recession that started 15 mths before he took office?
Nothing, but it would be nice if he could get the economy going sometime, it's only been 5 years or so. Bush didn't take this long and he had to deal with a recession, then 9/11. Remember that one? Oh, you might want to look up the CRA before you go blaming every blessed thing on Bush.

By the way, I voted for Bush, and have never voted for Obama. But I'm just attempting to be reasonable as I really dislike the hypocracy created by partisan politics.

Great, I voted for him once too.
 
So he took action to prevent the Great Bush Recession? And surely he was listening to conservative economist Peter Schiff who was trumpeting to the world that the sub-prime mortgage loan market was in a bubble that was going to collapse. So what action did Bush take to prevent that?

And he prevented the 911 attacks? And he killed Bin Laden?
So, you expected Bush, the guy that was "asleep at the wheel" to be the only person in the United States to have figured out that 9/11 was about to happen? So please tell me, who did know about it? Clinton(s)? Gore? Schiff? Why didn't the geniuses step forward to help, since he should have known?

That's pretty disingenuous if you think Bush didn't have anything to do with killing Bin Laden. Obama said "okay", Bush did the rest. I thought you claimed you were trying to be fair or something?
In what respect? Number of lives lost due to terrorism? Number of attacks on US embassies? Number of recessions started on his watch? Number of executive order? Yes, he is last place in all of that.
I think it would be easier to try and figure out where he is not the worst. I'm hearing crickets.
 
So, you expected Bush, the guy that was "asleep at the wheel" to be the only person in the United States to have figured out that 9/11 was about to happen? So please tell me, who did know about it? Clinton(s)? Gore? Schiff? Why didn't the geniuses step forward to help, since he should have known?

That's pretty disingenuous if you think Bush didn't have anything to do with killing Bin Laden. Obama said "okay", Bush did the rest. I thought you claimed you were trying to be fair or something?

I think it would be easier to try and figure out where he is not the worst. I'm hearing crickets.

OBUMMER IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER AT ALL THINGS.

Do you guys realize how ridiculous you sound?
 
Sure. If we attribute our economic performance to the president, Obummer absolutely sucks.

For that matter, I can't imagine why in the hell we would ever consider voting for another republican POTUS, because at the end of the last republican presidency, we had NEGATIVE growth. Yet some republicans still pretend that Bush wasn't doing a horrible job. Bush was asleep at the wheel, for his entire presidency. I called him the PINO (president in name only).

I guess it's all about picking from the lessor of evils. I suspect that in a couple of more years, we are going to compare the 8 years of Obummer, and the 8 years of Bush, and decide that the 8 years of Obummer ended much better than the 8 years of Bush. thats assuming that our economy doesn't fall apart before then of course.

Now talley up how many recessions started under recent presidents (during my lifetime), by party. Let's see, 6 under republicans, 1 under democrats. Hmm.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it quite interesting how little so many here know about civics and how Congress works. Prior to the Democrats taking control of Congress, Bush took over from the Clinton recession, had 9/11 and still grew the economy 4.4 trillion dollars, created 9 million jobs, and had 5 straight months of job creation. Bush added 4.9 trillion dollars to the debt.

Democrats took control of the Congress, Obama has created 4 million jobs in 6 years, has stagnant economic growth, 7 trillion added to the debt, and record numbers of discouraged, workers and part time employees.

You see, actual facts just show how partisan you really are.
 
Back
Top Bottom