As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.

Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.

Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.

It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

(07-30-2014 05:01 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.
Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.
Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.
It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

Yep.

The average is still extremely anemic and the unemployment rate is still relatively high.

(07-30-2014 05:01 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.

Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.

Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.

It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

Double yep.

Almost as if they were doing everything they could to inhibit growth. If there were relatively easily identifiable (by historic outcomes) things to do, they seem to have intentionally done the precise opposite.

Thanks Krugman. You buffoon.

And the biggest reason for the increase? Inventory hoarding.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-30...cumulation

I'm sure those overstuffed warehouses will require some more part-time jobs to move around, and Tom will celebrate that, too.

And the markets celebrated the 2Q news by selling off all gains made this year. Good times....

(07-31-2014 08:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  And the markets celebrated the 2Q news by selling off all gains made this year. Good times....

Let the good times roll.. ba da dum dum, let the good times roll.....

Quagmire. Stagflation. Ditch.

Carter must be relieved.

(07-30-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 05:01 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.
Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.
Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.
It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

Yep.

A presentation I saw a couple of years ago so it would be 2017 before the economy got back on track. Of course that discounts an geopolitical crap blowing up.

(08-01-2014 08:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 05:01 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.
Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.
Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.
It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

Yep.

A presentation I saw a couple of years ago so it would be 2017 before the economy got back on track. Of course that discounts an geopolitical crap blowing up.

I think that depends on what happens in November 2016. If it's Hillary, and she listens to Bill, it could be 2017. If it's Elizabeth Warren, it's never. If it's a republican, I'd like to think that would be good, but as crazy as they are acting right now, I'm not sure.

If there's a way to get Hillary with solid republican control of both houses of congress, I'd take it in a heartbeat right now. It's not really what I want, but it's at least survivable when there are a lot of options out there (Warren, D president with D congress) that simply aren't.

(08-01-2014 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 08:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 05:01 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  As was demonstrated in the Federal Reserve's own report, the growth that has followed the 2008 financial crisis, has been the weakest when compared to previous financial crisis recessions (Historical growth following a recession). In the past, growth following financial based recessions has been robust.
Historically, fiscal policy manipulations take about 18-24 months to manifest themselves in measurements of domestic output. Since the entire arsenal of fiscal measures that have been taken by this administration, were completed in the first year of Obama's Presidency (eg. stimulus, shovel ready projects), we should have seen robust growth by 2010 or 2011. But we didn't.
Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that instead of assisting the growth, the policy measures of this administration impeded the growth prospects.
It is also quite reasonable to conclude, that had this administration done nothing, we likely would have had a quicker recovery and now be near the top of the expansionary cycle. This is well supported by the work at the Chicago School.

Yep.

A presentation I saw a couple of years ago so it would be 2017 before the economy got back on track. Of course that discounts an geopolitical crap blowing up.

I think that depends on what happens in November 2016. If it's Hillary, and she listens to Bill, it could be 2017. If it's Elizabeth Warren, it's never. If it's a republican, I'd like to think that would be good, but as crazy as they are acting right now, I'm not sure.

If there's a way to get Hillary with solid republican control of both houses of congress, I'd take it in a heartbeat right now. It's not really what I want, but it's at least survivable when there are a lot of options out there (Warren, D president with D congress) that simply aren't.

NO NO NO NO NO

(07-30-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:11 PM)VA49er Wrote:  4% is great. Let's see what it's revised to in the next couple of weeks.

Yes. I find the 4% number questionable for many reasons.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-ec...17764.html

Always helps to have some idea of what you're talking about. A lesson timmy still hasn't learned.

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:11 PM)VA49er Wrote:  4% is great. Let's see what it's revised to in the next couple of weeks.

Yes. I find the 4% number questionable for many reasons.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-ec...17764.html

Thanks, was that so hard?

In the future, it's usually helpful to support your reasons with facts at the time you make the claim...not 6 days later with an article posted 5 days after you made such claim.

(07-30-2014 11:54 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We need sustained growth like what we've got in the 2nd qtr, but GOPers will do all they can to tank the economy. They've done all they can since the Great Recession to keep the economy weak.

So can I just go down to the farm and BUY a unicorn in your fantasy land?

(08-05-2014 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:11 PM)VA49er Wrote:  4% is great. Let's see what it's revised to in the next couple of weeks.

Yes. I find the 4% number questionable for many reasons.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-ec...17764.html

Thanks, was that so hard?

In the future, it's usually helpful to support your reasons with facts at the time you make the claim...not 6 days later with an article posted 5 days after you made such claim.

Once again you don't even understand. Shutting up would suit you: "Even a fool is considered wise when he says nothing".

(07-30-2014 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Economy Grew at Best Six-Month Stretch in 10 Years in Second Half of 2013

WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy surged in the second quarter, more than offsetting a first-quarter contraction and putting growth back on an upward trajectory in 2014.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.0% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast growth at a 3.0% pace for the quarter.

U.S. Second-Quarter GDP Expands at 4.0% Rate

Quit screwing up this forum with positive news.

(08-05-2014 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Economy Grew at Best Six-Month Stretch in 10 Years in Second Half of 2013

WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy surged in the second quarter, more than offsetting a first-quarter contraction and putting growth back on an upward trajectory in 2014.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.0% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast growth at a 3.0% pace for the quarter.

U.S. Second-Quarter GDP Expands at 4.0% Rate

Quit screwing up this forum with positive news.

And fitbud keeps up the proof that he can't read. The great thing is that you can insult his dumb ass all day, and he'll never know.

(08-05-2014 10:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes. I find the 4% number questionable for many reasons.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-ec...17764.html

Thanks, was that so hard?

In the future, it's usually helpful to support your reasons with facts at the time you make the claim...not 6 days later with an article posted 5 days after you made such claim.

Once again you don't even understand. Shutting up would suit you: "Even a fool is considered wise when he says nothing".

Actually, I do understand. Totally. Your link made perfect sense and I don't really disagree with any of it. In your continual rush to judge and insult others you once again failed.

My only point was that it would have been nice if you had stated the reasons for your claim when you made it, not a week later. Then we wouldn't have to guess as to whether you were just making up some conspiracy theory that they were fixing the number or that you actually had a valid point.

This is just another of the reasons why you aren't respected very much on here. Sorry.

(08-05-2014 10:49 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 11:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Economy Grew at Best Six-Month Stretch in 10 Years in Second Half of 2013

WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy surged in the second quarter, more than offsetting a first-quarter contraction and putting growth back on an upward trajectory in 2014.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.0% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast growth at a 3.0% pace for the quarter.

U.S. Second-Quarter GDP Expands at 4.0% Rate

Quit screwing up this forum with positive news.

And fitbud keeps up the proof that he can't read. The great thing is that you can insult his dumb ass all day, and he'll never know.

Trust me. I know you insult me daily. It's all you can do. You never contribute anything else to the conversation.

Who can blame you. If I was so ignorant that I thought that the word God was in the Constitution, I would stick to simply insulting people too.

(07-30-2014 11:54 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  We need sustained growth like what we've got in the 2nd qtr, but GOPers will do all they can to tank the economy. They've done all they can since the Great Recession to keep the economy weak.

LMAO @ you, you poor little loony piece of crap, hahahaha

Median income down 7% since Barry took office. Gas prices have doubled since Barry took office. Grocery bills are at all time highs since Barry took office. More people on food stamps since Barry took office. More Americans have dropped out of the work force since Barry took office, etc., etc., etc.