• 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. GDP Grows Just 1.3%

It might be time to give up the ghost about McCain. Listening to his rambling lately we might be even worse off if the world felt we have a senile president.

McCain wasn't my choice but sure would have beat what we have now.
 
McCain would have put stimulus spending towards creating jobs, not saving unions.

So the difference would have been what McCain spent the stimulus on. Great....

I mean what you said is great rhetoric, but in reality we're talking about basically the same strategy that Obama failed with. So basically, no better.
 
this is ridiculous, come back when you have actually done some research instead of listening to the mainstream media. Ever hear of Christina Romer? Find out who she was and what she said. The rest of your post is typical liberalism, At least be honest with your leanings.
AdamT just posted what she said ... Here, read it again.

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."


You should be familiar with it by now, this is not the first time this has been shown to you.
 
Let's see how smart you are, I am a conservative and proudly admit that. In 2000 I had a choice of Bush vs. Gore. Who would a Conservative vote for? In 2004 I had a choice between Bush and Kerry, who would a Conservative vote for? What I see is someone who always blames others for their own failures. given the choice I had, I would make it again, hardly hypocritical. I don't have any use for liberal politicians and will always vote for the one closest to my point of view.
Do you realize what you're saying?? After claiming no less than 2,000 times about how "results matter," you finally confess that results don't really matter to you at all. Not one bit. All that matters to you is that the candidate put a "R" after their name.

Damn, Conservative, who knew you thought the "R" after a candidates name stood for "Results."


3h4yr5
 
Do you realize what you're saying?? After claiming no less than 2,000 times about how "results matter," you finally confess that results don't really matter to you at all. Not one bit. All that matters to you is that the candidate put a "R" after their name.

Damn, Conservative, who knew you thought the "R" after a candidates name stood for "Results."


3h4yr5

Who would you have voted for given the choice we had and if you were a Conservative? Results do matter but I use the balance sheet approach, assets vs. liabilities and in 2004 the economy was improving dramatically. That isn't the case now nor will it be next year as Obama has no economic plan in place
 
Do you realize what you're saying?? After claiming no less than 2,000 times about how "results matter," you finally confess that results don't really matter to you at all. Not one bit. All that matters to you is that the candidate put a "R" after their name.

Damn, Conservative, who knew you thought the "R" after a candidates name stood for "Results."


3h4yr5

Bush employment results that warranted re-election in November 2004

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125

January 2001 137.8
October 2004 139.7

2 million increase

GDP growth

2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80

Bush got 51% of the November 2004 vote with most apparently seeing the same numbers as I saw
 
Since 40% of the people now believe that Obama is doing a good job and that number was 45% a few days ago that would be a declining number and I believe you are part of that 40%
You mean the Republican plan to bring down Obama at the risk of wrecking our nation's credit is working? And I'm still not sure what you think that number means.

So Obama's stimulus package which was signed the first of February 2009 for shovel ready jobs didn't solve the unemployment problem yet you blame Bush.
It wasn't Obama's fault that 8 million people lost their job. That was the result of Bush's Great Recession.

Don't see the 22 million lost jobs during the Bush years but I guess you make numbers up as you go along.
I'm employing your math ... 14% U6 rate of an employment force of 154 million.

Do you see the irony of the guy who posts how the current U6 rate of the current employment force means we have 24 million underemployed can't see how that same equation works in the month when Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House?
 
You mean the Republican plan to bring down Obama at the risk of wrecking our nation's credit is working? And I'm still not sure what you think that number means.


It wasn't Obama's fault that 8 million people lost their job. That was the result of Bush's Great Recession.


I'm employing your math ... 14% U6 rate of an employment force of 154 million.

Do you see the irony of the guy who posts how the current U6 rate of the current employment force means we have 24 million underemployed can't see how that same equation works in the month when Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House?

40% approval rating indicates to me that Obama is losing this battle and you know it. He scares people like you and you continue to buy the rhetoric.
 
When it is presented as fact to sell a program which is what happened during the Stimulus debate
Do you ever stop lying??

Damn, Conservative!

It was presented WITH the disclaimer ...

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

That doesn't look like "fact" to me.
 
You mean the Republican plan to bring down Obama at the risk of wrecking our nation's credit is working? And I'm still not sure what you think that number means.


It wasn't Obama's fault that 8 million people lost their job. That was the result of Bush's Great Recession.


I'm employing your math ... 14% U6 rate of an employment force of 154 million.

Do you see the irony of the guy who posts how the current U6 rate of the current employment force means we have 24 million underemployed can't see how that same equation works in the month when Bush handed Obama the keys to the White House?

So then two years after the end of a recession we have 3 million more unemployed or under employed (154 million X 16.2%) and you think that is worthy of re-election? When does this become the Obama economy?
 
Who would you have voted for given the choice we had and if you were a Conservative?
Ummm, this isn't about me. You're the one who constantly claims that "results matter."

Except to you, all that matters is that the candidate put an "R" after their name.
 
Do you ever stop lying??

Damn, Conservative!

It was presented WITH the disclaimer ...

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

That doesn't look like "fact" to me.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Ummm, this isn't about me. You're the one who constantly claims that "results matter."

Except to you, all that matters is that the candidate put an "R" after their name.

Bye, Sheik, Friday night and I am out of patience with you. Have a good one
 
Ouch.

U.S. GDP Grows Just 1.3% - WSJ.com


BAD: GDP Misses Estimates At 1.3%, Q1 Revised Down To Just 0.4%


I know somebody had predicted 1.3%, but it was certainly a low-ball estimate. I expected the 1st quarter to revised down (just because that's been the trend) but never would have guessed 0.4%??

The graph of the recovery now looks like you threw something off a building and it hit bottom and took a small bounce.

Bernancke is of course assuring us that the next few months will be better... :notlook:

Core inflation:
Up 1.6% last quarter and 2.1% this quarter.

Surprised the markets did not swoon more on this report. This means even as QE2 was going on we were essentially on the edge of recession. Not sure if the Fed has any more bullets while government spending is going to trend down not up. This seems to be more meaningful than the sideshow called the debt ceiling debate.
 
Bush employment results that warranted re-election in November 2004

2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125

January 2001 137.8
October 2004 139.7

2 million increase

GDP growth

2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80

Bush got 51% of the November 2004 vote with most apparently seeing the same numbers as I saw
U6 unemployment rate during that period went from 7.3% to to 9.7%, a 2.4 point increase (33%). You want Obama's head on a stick because it went from 14% to 16.2%, a 2.2 point increase (16%).

underemployment increases 2.4 points under Bush, Conservative: "Four more years!"

underemployment increases 2.2 points under Obama, Conservative: "Impeach him!"

Just admit you're a hypocrite. Get that weight off your shoulder.
 
40% approval rating indicates to me that Obama is losing this battle and you know it. He scares people like you and you continue to buy the rhetoric.
Is that what it means?

Really??

Is that what it meant on this day in 1983 when Reagan had a 42% jopb approval rating?
 
I have been trying to compare the data to previous recessions and I found a blog post on the federal reserve about the contributors to GDP:

macroblog: Is consumer spending the problem?

From what I can tell, consumer spending has been historically weaker in this recession. Also, residential spending for obvious reasons isn't there. Government spending and a lack of growth in services seem to be the next biggest dampers on growth when comparing to historical experience. However, it seems like this current recession could be called somewhat of a boom in business investment spending. If you look at the contributors to growth it has been durable goods and equipment and software spending (even exports have not been a drag on the economy as it has been historically). I agree, it seems that excessive household and government debt is slowing down the economy significantly. On the other hand corporate america has never really been healthier, so that is a plus. I think if we can get our fiscal house in order in the next few years the US could have very good long run prospects, we just need to get past this bump in the road.

To that, would you agree or disagree that a long-term deficit reduction plan with significant spending cuts tied to the debt limit would be better than a short six-month extension with minimum cuts?
 
Something to keep in mind for those "is the country moving in the right direction" survey questions...

Feb, 2009: Obama signs $787 billion economic stimulus package into law
"We're putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done –- (applause)"

  • Total Employment:141687k, 60.3% of the population.

July, 2011: Obama holds press conference on the June jobs report
"We've added more than 2 million new private sector jobs over the past 16 months"
  • Total Employment: 139334k, 58.2% of the population.

While two million jobs is certainly a positive, if the current rate of job creation continues, it could take another 32 months just to get back to the size of the workforce when the stimulus was signed (taking us into 2014) -- even longer to get back to 60.3% employment. That's 32 months until we get back to an unemployment level that prompted the largest spending bill in history.
 
Last edited:
But Taylor, you have to factor in the unemployment numbers:

1) one major book retailer going out of business.

2) public employees being laid off or forced into "early" retirement.

3) private companies who normally rely on government contracts not being able to acquire or renew those contracts due to reductions in government spending, which in turn have also forced layoffs from public-private partnerships.

These things also factor into the increased unemployment numbers.
 
I hold Obama responsible for doing what he can do. It's as simple as that. The economy would probably be better if he had done a significantly larger stimulus, but realistically he probably couldn't have gotten more than he did ... since he needed at least token republican support. The debt situation would not be quite so bad if he had been able to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts, but the republicans would not allow that. The markets would not be tanking if he had signed the $4 trillion debt extension deal he was offering, but the republicans would not have that. The health care reform law would have been better, and would have saved more, if it had a public option, but the republicans would not have that. Financial reform legislation would have been stronger, but republicans would not allow that. The consumer protection agency could have had more teeth, but republicans will not allow that.

Are you seeing a trend here?

Sure. Spend, spend, spend.
 
It was never claimed that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8% -- THAT is the lie, and one conservatives never tire of telling. Specifically, this is what the administration report said about the 8% estimate:

"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

PolitiFact | Will: Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent

‪MTP Christina Romer predicts unemployment will fall.mov‬‏ - YouTube
 
Back
Top Bottom