GDP grew 2.2% the first quarter, which is down from 3.0% but still way better than the NEGATIVE 8.9% in Bush's last quarter.

Of course what's weighing the growth down is cutting government spending and jobs, both here (mostly at the state and local level thanks to Teabaggers) and with austerity polices in the UK, Spain and Greece. These retardican austerity policies are 100% to blame for our slow growth, and all I have to say is thank God we at least got one sizeable stimulus through to inject some demand when we needed it most.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-27...ecast.html

Quote:In addition to the pickup in consumer purchases and homebuilding, the economy also benefited from a jump in auto production. GDP was restrained by a drop in government spending and slower growth in business investment in equipment and in inventories.

The U.S. is doing better than some of the other major economies. The U.K. economy slipped into its first double-dip recession since the 1970s, figures showed this week. In Japan and Germany, gross domestic product dropped in the final three months of 2011, while China, the world’s second-largest economy, is also cooling.

“The U.S. is where the strength is,” Sandy Cutler, chairman and chief executive officer at Eaton Corp. (ETN), said on an April 23 conference call with analysts. “The markets outside the U.S. are not where the strength is this year.”

The Cleveland-based company predicted its U.S. markets, including electrical, hydraulics, aerospace, truck and automotive, will rise 9 percent this year, up from an earlier estimate of 6 percent. For its markets abroad, Eaton reduced its growth forecast to 2 percent from 4 percent, Cutler said.

‘More Powerful’
“Domestic demand will be more of a driver than overseas demand, which means the recovery should be more powerful,” Joseph Carson, director of global economic research at AllianceBernstein LP in New York, said before the report.

Sustained domestic demand will help make the U.S. expansion more resilient, cushioning the nation against cooling exports amid Europe’s debt crisis and a slowdown in global growth.

The Federal Open Market Committee “expects economic growth to remain moderate over coming quarters and then to pick up gradually,” it said in an April 25 statement at the conclusion of a two-day meeting in Washington. “The unemployment rate has declined but remains elevated.”

Local Governments
Other areas of the economy that struggled include spending by state and local governments, which decreased at a 1.2 percent annual rate, after a 2.2 percent drop. Outlays by federal agencies declined 5.6 percent. National defense spending slumped 8.1 percent, following a 12.1 percent decrease the prior quarter.

Nice job plucking a quote from one random, unknown manufacturing company executive in an article about how yet another economic indicator missed expectations.

So what caused those Euro countries to get into a position where they either had to implement austerity measures or default? Surely it didn't have anything to do with debt, did it? Way to continue diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease itself.

(04-27-2012 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  So what caused those Euro countries to get into a position where they either had to implement austerity measures or default? Surely it didn't have anything to do with debt, did it? Way to continue diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease itself.

It's been pretty clear none of the liberals on here grasp what's happening in Europe. They truly are under the delusion too little government spending is the problem.

(04-27-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  and all I have to say is thank God we at least got one sizeable stimulus through to inject some demand when we needed it most.

Absolutely.

(04-27-2012 11:46 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  and all I have to say is thank God we at least got one sizeable stimulus through to inject some demand when we needed it most.

Absolutely.

You mean the stimulus that gave us absolutely nothing resembling what Obama said it would? Not the drop in unemployment. Not the GDP growth. Nothing.

Yeah, what a savior that was.

(04-27-2012 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Nice job plucking a quote from one random, unknown manufacturing company executive in an article about how yet another economic indicator missed expectations.

So what caused those Euro countries to get into a position where they either had to implement austerity measures or default? Surely it didn't have anything to do with debt, did it? Way to continue diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease itself.

I just went to the Bloomberg article linked on Realclearpolitics bro. If you think he's not representative take it up with them.

And since when is austerity or default the only two options to control a deficit/make interest payments? Last I checked you can raise taxes on the rich or devalue the currency (the latter of course not being an option for Euro nations). I never cease to be amazed at how vehemently opposed to taxing the rich (and supporting lowering their taxes) conservatives are, so billionaires can throw some more money on the pile, meanwhile they cry for gutting social programs for the poor and middle class, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, doubling interest rates on college loans, etc etc

(04-27-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Of course what's weighing the growth down is cutting government spending and jobs, both here (mostly at the state and local level thanks to Teabaggers)

Quote:Local Governments
Other areas of the economy that struggled include spending by state and local governments, which decreased at a 1.2 percent annual rate, after a 2.2 percent drop. Outlays by federal agencies declined 5.6 percent. National defense spending slumped 8.1 percent, following a 12.1 percent decrease the prior quarter.

Can you explain how a 1.2% drop in state and local spending vs an 5.6.% drop in federal spending, mostly in defense, (down ANtHER 8% after 12% last quarter) supports your claim?

Or do you admit to being an unabashed liar?

Oh right, it's the Democrats cutting (non-defense) spending!

Over the last couple years the GOP has indeed been cutting spending at the state and local levels. The federal drop is due in part to the 2009 stimulus spending being phased out and a Teabagging house that won't agree to re-up or for any more spending.




If you want to argue about cutting defense spending, we can go there. Of course I'm happy we're done with Iraq and our vets can come home to their families.

(04-27-2012 12:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Nice job plucking a quote from one random, unknown manufacturing company executive in an article about how yet another economic indicator missed expectations.

So what caused those Euro countries to get into a position where they either had to implement austerity measures or default? Surely it didn't have anything to do with debt, did it? Way to continue diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease itself.

I just went to the Bloomberg article linked on Realclearpolitics bro. If you think he's not representative take it up with them.

And since when is austerity or default the only two options to control a deficit/make interest payments? Last I checked you can raise taxes on the rich or devalue the currency (the latter of course not being an option for Euro nations). I never cease to be amazed at how vehemently opposed to taxing the rich (and supporting lowering their taxes) conservatives are, so billionaires can throw some more money on the pile, meanwhile they cry for gutting social programs for the poor and middle class, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, doubling interest rates on college loans, etc etc

Taxing the poor and middle class directly = bad.
Taxing the poor and middle class indirectly through currency devaluation and inflation = good.

Are you actually able to keep a straight face while you type this crap?

$2.52 in debt to raise the GDP $1. That's government efficiency!

(04-27-2012 01:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Oh right, it's the Democrats cutting (non-defense) spending!

Over the last couple years the GOP has indeed been cutting spending at the state and local levels. The federal drop is due in part to the 2009 stimulus spending being phased out and a Teabagging house that won't agree to re-up or for any more spending.


If you want to argue about cutting defense spending, we can go there. Of course I'm happy we're done with Iraq and our vets can come home to their families.

Do you think people can't see that you aren't responding to the question and instead bring up more lies?

You said the tea party and local cuts was responsible for the decline... Your data don't support your claim. Your chart from 2010 doesn't either. The largest cuts seem to be coming from defense according to your quotes... since they are a large percentage of the budget overall... And not from the tea party... Unless YOU are arguing that they are responsible for the cuts in defense. That is up to you to decide.

(04-27-2012 01:34 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 12:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Nice job plucking a quote from one random, unknown manufacturing company executive in an article about how yet another economic indicator missed expectations.

So what caused those Euro countries to get into a position where they either had to implement austerity measures or default? Surely it didn't have anything to do with debt, did it? Way to continue diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease itself.

I just went to the Bloomberg article linked on Realclearpolitics bro. If you think he's not representative take it up with them.

And since when is austerity or default the only two options to control a deficit/make interest payments? Last I checked you can raise taxes on the rich or devalue the currency (the latter of course not being an option for Euro nations). I never cease to be amazed at how vehemently opposed to taxing the rich (and supporting lowering their taxes) conservatives are, so billionaires can throw some more money on the pile, meanwhile they cry for gutting social programs for the poor and middle class, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, doubling interest rates on college loans, etc etc

Taxing the poor and middle class directly = bad.
Taxing the poor and middle class indirectly through currency devaluation and inflation = good.

Are you actually able to keep a straight face while you type this crap?

No it destroys accumulated wealth while being largely indifferent to earned income (though it can trail; wages are sticky like I said), and because most poor and middle class people spend all of their paycheck it doesn't hit them much at all. There was a time when populists actively promoted inflation for this reason. Again, another good reason for inflation because it hurts the rich with sh!tloads of net worth.

(04-27-2012 01:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

$2.52 in debt to raise the GDP $1. That's government efficiency!

That chart is worthless without specifying the year and quarter.

All I know is this - I've moved most of my investments that I had in international funds and stocks into US funds and stocks.

(04-27-2012 01:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Do you think people can't see that you aren't responding to the question and instead bring up more lies?

You said the tea party and local cuts was responsible for the decline... Your data don't support your claim. Your chart from 2010 doesn't either. The largest cuts seem to be coming from defense according to your quotes... since they are a large percentage of the budget overall... And not from the tea party... Unless YOU are arguing that they are responsible for the cuts in defense. That is up to you to decide.

They certainly are a big part of the decline. I'd agree with you that defense cuts are responsible in part too, and that Dems are responsible for that, but like I said it's because we're winding down the Iraq War (which has been in the works for years). What we should be doing is expanding domestic government spending at the same time to give these vets some more opportunities but the Teabaggers instead slash with reckless abandon.

(04-27-2012 02:01 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

$2.52 in debt to raise the GDP $1. That's government efficiency!

That chart is worthless without specifying the year and quarter.

It's actually worthless for many more reasons than that, the first of which is that q1 spending isn't necessarily designed to generate q1 GDP.... But it tends to show how worthless charts are, even with context like year and quarter... First quarter is stated, year doesn't really matter, so long as they are the same year... Because as I said, spending doesn't necessariy generate immediate GDP. The definition of spending can also change the results... Etc etc etc.

Read this carefully, Max. On the heels of any kind of stimulus, spending will HAVE to decline to its previous levels, at the very least... Otherwise, it's not stimulus, merely increased spending. The problem is, we normally spend much less and yet GDP increases are much faster, so we don't mind spending cuts and slight GDP declines to keep inflation in check. That isn't our problem. Now I realize that you'd like to not blame Obama and the democrats, yet when they had filibuster proof control of congress, they chose to focus on healthcare as opposed t the economy.... And you can't blame the tea party or anyone else, because they were JUST as against Obamacare

Your bls chart on state and local employment actually proves the argument of groups like the tea party... State payrolls have declined in an effort to balance budgets, while federal rolls have increased. Without arguing about what policies those groups should follow, do you believe in central or local control? If central, then you aren't really complaining, are you? The Feds could have just as easily given money directly to the states.

(04-27-2012 02:01 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-27-2012 01:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

$2.52 in debt to raise the GDP $1. That's government efficiency!

That chart is worthless without specifying the year and quarter.

Sorry, I thought you knew what "Q1" meant. And I shouldn't have left it up to you to use common sense and assume it's for 2012. My mistake.

Quote:In addition to the pickup in consumer purchases and homebuilding, the economy also benefited from a jump in auto production. GDP was restrained by a drop in government spending and slower growth in business investment in equipment and in inventories.

Well, sure, the article's author is just copying from an Econ 101 textbook where the common formula is...

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)
[consumptions + investment + govt spending + (export minus import)]

But GDP alone isn't a great measure of a nation's economic health and doesn't carry as much value as it's credited for.

This is one man's opinion (economist Frank Shostak), so take it for what it is:

Quote:For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth.

So the GDP formula is 'dinged' because of the reported reduction in spending. But I wouldn't read too much into that.

(04-27-2012 03:30 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth.

I for one welcome our new pyramid building government overlords. All hail President Barack Gozer!