Berwyn Talk Forum

GDP growth for 1Q12 was terrible at just 2.2%.  Economists had reduced forecasts all the way down to 2.5%, but the Obama economy could not even muster that.

Quote from: jake on April 27, 2012, 08:09:31 PM
GDP growth for 1Q12 was terrible at just 2.2%.  Economists had reduced forecasts all the way down to 2.5%, but the Obama economy could not even muster that.

Imagine! And, currently, we have witnessed firsthand the nearly frenzied buying of residential property here in the Bullhead City (AZ)/Laughlin (NV) area. We looked at a nice house for sale on a Friday; over the weekend no less than 7 offers had been made on it, this despite the fact that single-family residence vacancy rate here is currently around 12%! Perhaps the traditionally over-built, over-speculated areas "pick up" quicker, just to corroborate their previous past history? Will Vegas be next?   berwynson

Why can't we have the 5 percent GDP growth rate the U.S. had at the end of the "Bush economy"? Terrible!

I think it was 5 percent growth at the end of the Bush economy. Somebody should look it up.

Can you imagine the amazing growth rate we would have under a McCain economy? Things would be different for so many reasons!

I'm sure economists know what those reasons are. They're just not saying.

Quote from: jake on April 27, 2012, 08:09:31 PM
GDP growth for 1Q12 was terrible at just 2.2%.  Economists had reduced forecasts all the way down to 2.5%, but the Obama economy could not even muster that.

It's much better than the GDP in some countries in Europe, several of which are experiencing negative GDP. 

  Given the fact that we were going through the worst economic times since the depression at the end of the Bush term, 2.2% GDP looks good to me, especially with what's going on in Europe.

And, do you really think people are going to get up in arms over 3 tenths of a percent?  Seriously?

  Only Obama haters and Fox Noise care that much about three tenths of a percent.

(This space reserved for the PhotoShop image I'm working on of a bald eagle with a tear running down one eye reading a newspaper with the headline, "GDP Increases.")

It is not the size of the miss, it was that expectations were extremely low (and recently lowered) at just 2.5%, and even that was missed with the 2.2%...and then there is inflation.  Nominal GDP is bad; REAL GDP is worse.

And, Ted, you know that when you come out of the "worst economic times" you traditionally get a massive bounce in GDP with a recovery.  With Obamanomics we never experienced that. 

Now we are slowing again.

We live in different times with a more global economy.  The lead weight of Europe affects America's economic recovery.

I'm surprised GDP even grew by over 2%, given what is going on over in Europe.

Terrible Obamanomics! With its terrible Obamanomicky things that nobody has ever tried before!

What do you think is the most terrible Obamanomicky thing? It's been a rough ride since the 10 percent GDP growth at the end of the Bush economy.

Just guessing about the 10 percent. Somebody should look that up,

Quote from: Ted on April 28, 2012, 10:56:10 AM

We live in different times with a more global economy.  The lead weight of Europe affects America's economic recovery.

I'm surprised GDP even grew by over 2%, given what is going on over in Europe.

Ted,

So Obama's budget projections are absolute crap then?  If that is the case, let's hope President Obama finally takes a serious look at budgets and deficits.  Reversing the Obama tax cuts on the $250K earners and the Buffett rule aren't going to scrape the surface of the problems that a 2.2% GDP imply.

Does GDP growth mean there's going to be a double-dip recession? I remember reading on Berwyn Talk Forum that there was going to be a double dip recession. Maybe GDP isn't tied to recessions.

If only the person who said we were on the verge of a double dip recession last year would step up and explain!

Last weekend, CNN had a program on the world economy.  Several economists said that what America (under Obama) did right and what several European countries did wrong was to spend during the depression rather than try to balance the budgets.

  The tea partiers were wrong.  The best thing Obama did was let the government spend money to get out of the Bush depression and not try to balance the budget.  Europe is suffering because they did the opposite.

  Europe made the same mistake that Roosevelt made during the depression and now Europe is paying for it.

Quote from: Ted on April 28, 2012, 12:16:40 PM

Last weekend, CNN had a program on the world economy.  Several economists said that what America (under Obama) did right and what several European countries did wrong was to spend during the depression rather than try to balance the budgets.

  The tea partiers were wrong.  The best thing Obama did was let the government spend money to get out of the Bush depression and not try to balance the budget.  Europe is suffering because they did the opposite.

  Europe made the same mistake that Roosevelt made during the depression and now Europe is paying for it.

What another European country, Germany, did was implement austerity, and now it has a solid economy.  [I know you Greeks did something else over there...that did not turn out so well now did it?.]

The US recession ended a few years ago.  And now we are stuck with slowing GDP growth at just 2.2% while inflation is killing the lower and middles classes, the elderly are stuck with no yield in fixed income investments. 

The Obama budget (which Dems refuse to vote on) assumes higher GDP growth and continues to create deficits even with his taxes on the $250K earners.  So now that we see those higher GDP assumptions are not going to happen under Obamanomics, Obama needs to address what is going to be even greater deficits and debt. 

That means lower spending and/or higher taxes on the middle class.  Those are the facts.

  Germany's economy contracted by .25% in Q4 of 2011.  It did not expand. Total GDP in Germany is expected to be up by only .6% for 2011, down from previous estimates of 1%.

Q3 Eurozone GDP was up by only .1%, down from the previous estimates of .2%.

  That makes America's GDP increase of over 2% look pretty good.

  The economists on the CNN program pointed to the austerity programs in Germany and England as why Europe is going in the wrong direction. By not spending money and by trying to balance their budgets, they made the Eurozone economy go downhill.  Germany represents 25% of the Eurozone economy

  As I said, the powers in Europe made the same mistake as Roosevelt in the Great Depression. Obama did the right thing.

  btw, Greece is not the only Eurozone country with negative economic news. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are also going through tough times. The UK and even France are feeling the pain.

  What Obama should do is ask the same question that Reagan asked in 1980 - Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

  I think most people in this country will answer yes.

Quote from: Ted on April 28, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
What Obama should do is ask the same question that Reagan asked in 1980 - Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

I think most people in this country will answer yes.

Uh, commodity prices are up so I pay more in gas, my house is worth less, many friends and family are still unemployed, my savings are earning nothing which forces me to invest into risky assets to get any return, very few people I know are getting pay raises, while interest rates are low (see comment on savings earning nothing) it is still very tough to refi a house because the price continues to decline, property taxes are increasing...

And then there is THE DEBT.

Who are you kidding that anybody would answer "yes."

 

Osama is dead and GM is alive.    :-*

  I agree the housing market is still tough, unemployment is still high and gas prices are high.

But, things are getting better and are better now than they were 4 years ago.

Unemployment is going down; the housing market is starting to get out from under foreclosures; and most financial institutions and the car industry are now stable (as well as many state and local governments that had financial problems).

I also agree that the debt has to be addressed. But, if Obama had tried to address the debt in 2009/2010 rather than institute a spending program, America would still be in a depression, like Europe. 

   Germany's and England's austerity programs have kept the rest of Europe in a depression.  The only countries that survived are those not tied to the Euro (Poland, Denmark) because they had the option of de-valuing their currency.

The trend is in the right direction in America from 2008.  America is recovering while Europe is still in a funk and going downhill fast.

  If you think people are going to care about the GDP increase being 2.2% rather than 2.5%, then you're crazy, especially when they look at the negative GDP numbers from Europe last year. No one cares about that .3% except the Obama haters.

Economically, this country is in much better shape than it was 4 years ago.  The biggest threat to that recovery right now is Europe.

I agree that few people outside of finance and econ care about the magnitude of the miss.  But people will care that the GDP growth rate is again slowing in a meaningful way.  That trend is bad, and while people may not care about the actual vs. estimate, they will notice that GDP did not rebound as much as expected given the depth of the recession (the deeper the recession, the higher the rebound...until now).  They will also notice that with actual numbers trending down, Obama's forecast (which already show increased debts) will be far off the mark and debt will get even larger.

Things are not better now than 4 years ago.

Gas costs more.

Houses are worth less.  You may spin tales of foreclosures moderating, but prices are down meaningfully compared to 4 years ago.  That is a fact; check the home indexes.

Debt is much higher and Obama's lofty projections (based on higher GDP, vs. actual trending down) reflect MORE DEBT!

Unemployment is still very high with U6 still in solid double digits.  Record numbers of Americans are now out of the workforce!  And recent jobless claims data is again trending UP. 

After Obama brought US debt to record levels, Americans are not better off today. 

Recessions end.  Given the depth of the recent recession, Americans were due for a much better rebound! 

It's the economic trend that matters, not minute numbers.  The trend is going to the better in America.  Unemployment is going down. The housing market is getting better. Financial institutions are stabler.

  Compared to Europe, America's economic trend is much much better and we are in a much better place now than we were 4 years ago.
 
  As for the people who "care about GDP", economists look at what is happening in Europe and understand why America's GDP increased by "only" 2.2% rather than 2.5%.  We live in a global economy.

  Next fall, voters will decide if we are better off today than we were 4 years ago.  Only an Obama hater with blinders on would say we are worse off today than we were 4 years ago.

Quote from: jake on April 29, 2012, 08:00:25 AM
I agree that few people outside of finance and econ care about the magnitude of the miss.  But people will care that the GDP growth rate is again slowing in a meaningful way.  That trend is bad, and while people may not care about the actual vs. estimate, they will notice that GDP did not rebound as much as expected given the depth of the recession (the deeper the recession, the higher the rebound...until now).  They will also notice that with actual numbers trending down, Obama's forecast (which already show increased debts) will be far off the mark and debt will get even larger.

Things are not better now than 4 years ago.

Gas costs more.

Houses are worth less.  You may spin tales of foreclosures moderating, but prices are down meaningfully compared to 4 years ago.  That is a fact; check the home indexes.

Debt is much higher and Obama's lofty projections (based on higher GDP, vs. actual trending down) reflect MORE DEBT!

Unemployment is still very high with U6 still in solid double digits.  Record numbers of Americans are now out of the workforce!  And recent jobless claims data is again trending UP. 

After Obama brought US debt to record levels, Americans are not better off today. 

Recessions end.  Given the depth of the recent recession, Americans were due for a much better rebound!

"people" (that you mean) will care about what they're told, by Faux Noise, to care about.  You do, or should understand that it's a rigged game, which makes your obsessive blame-shifting and re-framing of the current clusterfuck all the more odious. Whatever. Don't let facts get in the way.

The GDP did not rebound as much as expected BY WHOM? From Sept. 2008- Jan. 2009 we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.  Wall Street and its allied power brokers, who had orchestrated the clusterfuck, RIPPED over a TRILLION Dollars directly OUT of the economy, then sat on it, bathed in it and  scoffed at being held accountable. They siphoned/vaporized another $2-3 Trillion out of asset values and money pools.

We had 200,000 plus troops deployed with Cheney/Rumsfeld bestowed support and supply private contractors overbilling for their efforts.

Three years later, most of that has been halted and despite full-court obstruction, distraction and tantrum-tossing, the trend is moving positive across the U.S. economic spectrum. 

Now. Imagine 2009-2012 with Preznit Wallnuts and the Grifter from Wasilla's austerity plan.

Quote from: Ted on April 29, 2012, 08:50:56 AM

It's the economic trend that matters, not minute numbers.

YES!

But if you remove the Obama loving blinders, the TRENDS ARE DOWN! 
-GDP growth is slowing (trending down)
-Jobless claims are rising again (trending up)
-People fleeing the Obama jobs market is increasing (trending up)
-Gas prices are increasing (trending up)
-Home prices continue to fall (trending down)
-Banks continue to be shut down by the FDIC
-Major financial firms have been downgraded or are on CW negative

Oh, and the US got DOWNGRADED by a rating agency and US Debt is at a record high

Talk about blinders :)
Obama convinced his followers to not look at historical recoveries and the absolute weakness of his...turn a blind eye to our history and just focus on Europe...yeah, that's it.  There is nothing to see outside of those Obama blinders.

And let me introduce Mark Berwyn with nothing to say:

When GDP numbers go up, it actually means they're going down!
When unemployment numbers go down, they're actually going up!

America used to be on the verge of a double-dip recession. Now it's rebounding.

Where were you the day the president raised commodities prices?

Why can't I find "Obama loving blinders" in my size?

 You're wrong, Jake, on several things.

First, Obama didn't tell me to look at European GDP.  You brought that on yourself by your ridiculous claim that GDP was supposed to increase by 2.5% and the fact that GDP increased by 2.2% means that Obama is a bad bad person.

  I already knew what was going on in Europe.  I already knew that many European nations had a negative GDP change in 2011.

YOU invited those comparisons to Europe with your original post, not Obama.   Compared to what is happening in Europe, America is going gang busters.

Second, the trends ARE positive, not negative.  Unemployment is going down; foreclosed houses are getting off the market. GDP rose over 2%, which is pretty good considering the quagmire Europe could potentially pull us into.

Again, I ask the question - Are people better off today than they were 4 years ago?  Given the Bush Depression and the Bush Debt and the Bush Wars that Obama had to deal with, I think most people are going to answer YES.

Quote from: watcher on April 29, 2012, 09:36:18 AM

  ...  From Sept. 2008- Jan. 2009 we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.  Wall Street and its allied power brokers, who had orchestrated the clusterfuck, RIPPED over a TRILLION Dollars directly OUT of the economy, then sat on it, bathed in it and  scoffed at being held accountable. They siphoned/vaporized another $2-3 Trillion out of asset values and money pools.

Obama was faced with a dilemma in 2009 when he took office. He was confronted with a sinking economy with unstable financial institutions and he was also handed a huge debt.

  He could have take one of two roads - Either increase spending and stimulate the economy (and therefore increase the Bush Debt) or he could proceed with an austerity program at the start of the Bush Depression that would pay down the debt.

  Obama chose to stimulate the economy, even if it did increase the debt.

Germany chose the opposite road. Germany's choice has kept the rest of the Eurozone countries in a bad economic situation with zero growth to, in fact, shrinking economies.  Many European countries saw GDP decrease and even strong countries like Germany are flat.

  America, on the other hand, has seen its GDP increase by over 2%, depsite what is going on in Europe.

  Obama made the right choice - increase spending to get the economy on track, even though it increased the debt.

Europe made the wrong choice and they are paying for it.

I wonder what super secret economic data Ted is privy to that the Obama monetary team is in the dark about.

Once again this week Ben Bernanke indicated that QE3 is still on the table.  With the stable and upward trending economy that Ted's data points to, I am amazed that additional Easy Money is still thought to be needed by the Fed's economists. 

Ted for the Fed!  Ted for the Fed! :)

When in doubt, use jargon and mockery.

 Fareed Zakaria had a very good commentary on this issue on this mornings show GPS:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/28/zakaria-obama-should-push-for-investments-not-buffett-rule/ (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/28/zakaria-obama-should-push-for-investments-not-buffett-rule/) 
 
      Buffett Rule is bad politics for Obama

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

   After months of meandering, it seems President Barack Obama's re-election campaign has settled on a theme. The problem is - it's the wrong one.

   The "Buffett Rule" tax on millionaires has become Obama's bumper sticker. The proposal is reasonable - but it does not deserve the attention Obama is showering on it. It raises a trivial sum of money - $47 billion over the next 10 years - during which period the federal government will spend $45 trillion. It adds one more layer to a tax code that is already the most complex and corrupt in the industrialized world.

    The focus on the Buffett Rule is also bad politics in the long run for Obama. While polls might momentarily show that it works, Americans are generally aspirational, not envious. Over the years voters tend to support a government that focuses on creating opportunity rather than one that tries to reduce inequality. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's great feat was to position themselves as pro-market, pro-growth, pro-opportunity progressives. Obama should not fritter away that asset.

Ironically, Obama has been pivoting at the very moment events in the real world are providing him with the perfect campaign issue. We are four years into the financial crisis. In the United States, the government acted speedily and massively to stimulate the economy, using monetary and fiscal measures. In Europe, by contrast, governments quickly turned toward austerity programs, cutting spending across the board to reduce budget deficits.

Well, the results are in: The U.S. economy is expected to grow 2 to 3 percent this year. The euro zone is expected to contract by 0.3 percent this year; Spain and Britain have officially entered a double-dip recession, the first time major economies have done so in 40 years. IMF projections show that even Germany's average growth rate over the next five years will be only 40 percent of America's.

President Obama started the year speaking of "an economy built to last." He should return to this theme and frame this campaign as a choice between investments on the one hand and budget cuts on the other. And he has substance behind his rhetoric.

   Obama has proposed several important investment initiatives: a $476 billion infrastructure plan; a 5% hike in research and development spending; a job-training program to help dislocated workers; incentives for manufacturing; funds to expand the pool of college graduates and to increase science and engineering students. So, he should ask Americans to choose between these investments to create long-term growth versus massive budget cuts.

In the midst of the economic crisis, Warren Buffet said that his strategy was to invest in America. That's the Buffett Rule Obama should follow.

Output. (That little bar at the right is the Obama recovery)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/04/Recovery%203_0.jpg)


But let's follow Fed Chairman Ted and ignore all of this and look at Europe instead  ::)

[This data is from the Fed.  That same Fed that noted QE3 (easy money, record low rates for the banks to borrow from the Fed, etc.) is back on the table due to the shitty downward trends in the economy.]

Ted:

What do you think President Obama means by "an economy built to last?" No more recessions and consequently, no more growth? No more risk/reward? Will he conquer death and disease along with the old, bygone perils (and the concomitant sweet successes) of living life in what was once an imperfect world?

I keep looking at the glaring failures of central planners over the past century, and more specifically over the past 3.5 years, and the genius of these megalomaniacs still escapes me. Can you reassure me?

eno

P.S. You read it on Berwyn Talk Forum!

Quote from: Ted on April 29, 2012, 06:38:48 AM
   

   Germany's and England's austerity programs have kept the rest of Europe in a depression.  The only countries that survived are those not tied to the Euro (Poland, Denmark) because they had the option of de-valuing their currency.

What, you think the U.S. of A. does NOT have that option? Try the Monetary Reform Act signed by Reagan, about '81 or '82, thereabouts, in which private banking was effectively placed in the hands of the Fed, IF, "National Emergency measures be required,", etc., etc.

That Act gave the Fed the Legal Right to change-out the United States Currency at "any ratio deemed in the best interests of the Nation",..........

That part pissed me off less than the part which gave "discretionary Presidential Power to "Freeze all private bank accounts....", and, "Require a pre-determined span of time to elapse, subsequent to any private withdrawal request of private funds"........  Indeed, open a savings account. Read the fine print, or ask about it: "This Institution may require at it's discretion, 30 days prior written notice of any withdrawal intent".

Of course, that ostensibly was aimed at preventing "runs on banks"! What patent, lying, Washington-style bullshit!

DUPED AMERICA.

berwynson

  We are coming out of the worst depression since the 30s.  Despite what you want to believe, Europe does matter and a comparison to Europe does matter, since we live in a global economy and Europe was faced with the same situation 4 years ago.

  Obama was handed 3 huge turd balls when he entered office - the Bush Wars; the Bush Debt and the Bush Depression. 

  Obama had a choice - either go with an austerity program and pay down the debt (at the start of a depression) or spend to stimulate the economy, which would increase the debt.

  Obama chose stimulating the economy. Britain and Germany chose austerity programs.  4 years later, the depression in Europe is getting worse while America is recovering.

  America's GDP increase was over 2% while Europe's decreased.

   That's an indication that Obama made the right moves.  If Obama had followed the advice of Republican and the tea partiers, America would be in a same predicament as Europe.

  People are going to ask themselves what Reagan asked in 1980 - Are we better off now than we were 4 year ago?

The answer is yes.

The president is a central planner!

What was it about growing up in a madrassa that made the president a megalomaniac, do you think?

Maybe he's born with it. Maybe it's dog.

Quote from: Ted on April 30, 2012, 06:53:30 AM
  We are coming out of the worst depression since the 30s.  Despite what you want to believe, Europe does matter and a comparison to Europe does matter, since we live in a global economy and Europe was faced with the same situation 4 years ago.

  Obama was handed 3 huge turd balls when he entered office - the Bush Wars; the Bush Debt and the Bush Depression. 

  Obama had a choice - either go with an austerity program and pay down the debt (at the start of a depression) or spend to stimulate the economy, which would increase the debt.

  Obama chose stimulating the economy. Britain and Germany chose austerity programs.  4 years later, the depression in Europe is getting worse while America is recovering.

  America's GDP increase was over 2% while Europe's decreased.

   That's an indication that Obama made the right moves.  If Obama had followed the advice of Republican and the tea partiers, America would be in a same predicament as Europe.

  People are going to ask themselves what Reagan asked in 1980 - Are we better off now than we were 4 year ago?

The answer is yes.

Ted:

With all due respect, the part about "Bush debt" being a turd-ball, but "Obama debt" (which is substantially higher) being a magic salve makes no sense.

Also, your comparing the U.S. to Europe is misplaced; Europe is farther along the socialist, welfare state curve than we are (though Obama and the Dems have the U.S. closing quickly). Austerity measures aren't a matter of choice for some EU countries, but rather a last ditch effort to avoid a catastrophic default.

Finally, the measures which Tea-party Republicans are proposing (and which have passed the House several times) are geared towards merely containing/slowing the rate of growth in spending, and lowering taxes (which would stimulate investment and growth); these are hardly "austerity programs" (which in Europe, incidentally, included tax hikes). Obama, on the other hand, rejected his own panel's recommendations (Simpson-Bowles), and then presented a budget which didn't garner a single Democrat vote!

By any reasonable standard, Obama's policy (spending and more spending) has failed and has damaged the economy, preventing it from rebounding; growth in the U.S. is a joke, the job-market has been nuked, individual and family incomes are down, the housing market is still in the toilet, and after almost four years of this president, the trend is flat-to-lower with no light at the end of the tunnel. By every objective measure, we are much worse off than four years ago.

eno

The economy is not rebounding.

GDP growth is not a reasonable standard for measuring the economy.

The president and Democrats don't agree, but both are bringing us close to a socialist welfare state.

Quote from: markberwyn on April 30, 2012, 08:28:45 AM
The economy is not rebounding.

It actually has rebounded for Obama's fat-cat Wall Street pals...the "one-percent."

The president wants socialism and befriends Wall Street fat cats.

Quote from: markberwyn on April 30, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
The president wants socialism and befriends Wall Street fat cats.

Astute observation! History has a way of repeating, doesn't it?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

There is nothing new under the sun.

The president is a fascist/socialist/capitalist.

Quote from: markberwyn on April 30, 2012, 11:13:13 AM
The president is a fascist/socialist/capitalist.

...but don't forget that he's also a radical black Christian theologist, and a Muslim born in Kenya.

The president is a fascist socialist capitalist radical black Christian liberation theologist Nazi Kenyan Muslim.

Just imagine what he'll be by suppertime!

"Daddy, can I be president someday?"

"Of course you can. Anybody can."

"Even fascist socialist capitalist radical black Christian liberation theologist Nazi Kenyan Muslims?"

"Yes, son. Even you."

Quote from: markberwyn on April 30, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
"Daddy, can I be president someday?"

"Of course you can. Anybody can."

"Even fascist socialist capitalist radical black Christian liberation theologist Nazi Kenyan Muslims?"

"Yes, son. Even you."

I don't think anyone with a brain could accuse Obama of being Kenyan or Muslim; and what's wrong with being a Kenyan or a Muslim? Their are no Bibles, guns, or clinging involved...

Nor could anyone accuse Obama of being a capitalist; and after all, Capitalism is bad. It doesn't work unless smart people like Obama force all of us stupid folks to spread the wealth around!

You know....the wealth created by hard-working guys like Obama.

Quote from: eno on April 30, 2012, 08:27:08 AM
...  the part about "Bush debt" being a turd-ball, but "Obama debt" (which is substantially higher) being a magic salve makes no sense.

Also, your comparing the U.S. to Europe is misplaced;

  No, it's not misplaced. It is a valid comparison.

  First, I never said increasing the debt was a magic salve.  What I said was that Obama (as well as countries in Europe) were faced with a dilemma in 2008/2009 - either stimulate their economies by increasing spending or try to eliminate their debt.

Europe took one course (austerity programs) and are now facing an even worse economic situation. America took the other course (spending to stimulate the economy) and America is coming out of bad economic times.

As for the debt not being Bush's turd, before Bush took office we had a booming economy with surpluses.  Bush took that and created a huge debt.   It is indeed Bush's turd.

  btw, how did Reagan get us out of the 1981 recession?  He did the same thing as Obama - spend, spend spend and increase the debt.

Quote from: eno on April 30, 2012, 08:27:08 AM
By any reasonable standard, Obama's policy (spending and more spending) has failed....  By every objective measure, we are much worse off than four years ago.

  You're wrong.  By objective measures, we are a hell of a lot better off today than we were 4 years ago.  The unemployment rate is going down; the housing market is getting better.

  Obama was faced with the largest economic crisis this nation has seen since the Great Depression.  I think most people knew it would take time to recover.  But, the economy is heading in the right direction.

  Only the Obama haters and Fox Noise believe things were better off in 2008 than they are today.

Ted:

If you want to stick with looking at Europe, I suggest you go a bit further into looking at what kind of "austerity" has been implemented in some of the different countries. You may wish to take a look at the Baltic states, look at the depth of their recessions (actually true depressions) the nature and seriousness of the austerity programs they implemented, and the impressive rebounds.

You are being lead over a cliff by a monolithic, uninformed media which wants you to believe that "austerity" means merely reducing the rate of growth of government; real "austerity" means an actual reduction in the size of government. Where countries in Europe actually reduced the size of government significantly (as opposed to merely nipping around the edges) GDP growth is impressive.

Trust me; you can't government spend your way to prosperity. Borrowing and/or printing money eventually leads to disaster.

In countries I'm declining to tell you about, austerity works. Trust me.

Quote from: markberwyn on May 01, 2012, 08:26:01 AM
In countries I'm declining to tell you about, austerity works. Trust me.

Quote...You may wish to take a look at the Baltic states...

...No atlases inside the Beltway?

You're just going to have to look up this country for yourself! But trust me, everything I'm telling you about this country I'm not telling you about is absolutely true.

Quote from: eno on April 30, 2012, 05:49:42 PM




Nor could anyone accuse Obama of being a capitalist; and after all, Capitalism is bad. It doesn't work unless smart people like Obama force all of us stupid folks to spread the wealth around!

Quote from: eno on April 30, 2012, 08:31:32 AM

Quote from: markberwyn on April 30, 2012, 08:28:45 AM
The economy is not rebounding.

It actually has rebounded for Obama's fat-cat Wall Street pals...the "one-percent."

oeno, you've become a parody of yourself...

I'm practicing for the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Quote from: markberwyn on May 01, 2012, 08:39:13 AM
You're just going to have to look up this country for yourself! But trust me, everything I'm telling you about this country I'm not telling you about is absolutely true.

You really should've googled it, mark. Takes ten seconds.

Why is the MSM suppressing the story of the Baltic economic miracle?

Quote from: eno on May 01, 2012, 07:43:56 AM
...   You may wish to take a look at the Baltic states, look at the depth of their recessions (actually true depressions) the nature and seriousness of the austerity programs they implemented, and the impressive rebounds.

  From what I read, the Baltic countries were given a huge chunk of money from Uncle Sam to survive the Bush Depression.  That sounds like a debt increase to me... LOL

  Here is what I read when I googled.

  The Baltic countries had economic boom times through out the 2000s, mainly due to loans from Sweden to fuel their booming economies.  Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were being called the "Baltic Tiger".  Then in 2009, like the rest of the world, the Baltic countries had an economic downturn. 

  Other countries throughout the world also had economic downturns in 2009 as well, but the downturn in the Baltic countries were severe (GDP decreased 13% in Lithuania and Estonia and 18% in Latvia.  Other countries also experienced similar economic meltdowns (e.g. Iceland) and all of Europe and America experienced hard economic times in 2009.

  The Baltic countries turned to the U.S. for help.  The U.S. loaned money to the Baltic countries to stay afloat.

  In 2010, Lithuania had a 1.3 % GDP increase, Estonia had a 3.1%  increase while Lativa had a -0.3% decrease.

In 2011, Lithunia is expecting a 4.3% GDP increase but Estonia's economy shrunk while Latvia had a 1.1% increase.

My question is this - What would have happened without the U.S. giving these Baltic countries money to stay afloat? 

Back to the original post and the "pooh poohing" of a 2.2 increase in GDP in the U.S.

That is the same increase in GDP that was seen in 2011 in Australia and Canada.

So tell me, O' Great Obama Haters, why didn't Canada or Australia have double digit GDP increases?  Why is their GDP increase the same as the U.S.?

Is the Canadian and Australian GDP rates (which was the same as US) also Obama's fault?

 we are not out of the woods yet on this bad economy. but it is improving.  If McCain was president, he wouldn't have bailed out Chrysler & GM.  Our economy would be much,much worse, with millions more out of work.  And guess what? the auto companies paid us back with interest!

We must realize that austerity programs won't work, not in Europe and not here!

Quote from: Dav on May 02, 2012, 09:26:50 AM
we are not out of the woods yet on this bad economy. but it is improving.  If McCain was president, he wouldn't have bailed out Chrysler & GM.  Our economy would be much,much worse, with millions more out of work.  And guess what? the auto companies paid us back with interest!

We must realize that austerity programs won't work, not in Europe and not here!

How is the economy improving? Less people employed and looking for jobs is what is driving down the unemployment rate.

Our economy has always rebounded quickly after a recession (and even after a depression) unless of course you have Keynesian spending policies which prolong the agony and restrain growth.

The Bush stimulus was not Keynesian spending.

Quote from: eno on May 02, 2012, 01:20:11 PM
How is the economy improving? Less people employed and looking for jobs is what is driving down the unemployment rate.

Our economy has always rebounded quickly after a recession (and even after a depression) unless of course you have Keynesian spending policies which prolong the agony and restrain growth.

Not true.   

  What caused the rebound out of the Great Depression was the spending for WWII.   (Yes, Eno, government SPENDING). It took more than 3.5 years to get out of the Great Depression.

  And, the year after 1991 and 2001, the GDP increased less than 2%.

   

The economy is not improving. We are in a double-dip recession. When employment numbers increase, they are actually decreasing. When GDP grows, it shrinks.

This is a special way of looking at the economy that is wholly appropriate given the current president. He is special.

Quote from: markberwyn on May 02, 2012, 01:27:10 PM
This is a special way of looking at the economy that is wholly appropriate given the current president. He is special.

Yeah, and, apparently, the Baltic countries are "special" to the Obama hater world view as well.

Eno, riddle me this - If an austerity program in the middle of a depression turned out such great results in the Baltics, then why did Estonia's economy shrink last year (similar to other countries in Europe).

Shouldn't we be seeing double digit GDP increases in Estonia if what you say is true?

  Why did Estonia have a negative GDP rate last year?

Ted you started this by touting Obama's big spending (as the right choice) over European austerity (as the bad choice). To attempt to prove your point you observed that the U.S. had a recent, positive GDP of 2.2%, while "European countries" like Germany have negative or flat GDP's.

You were selective in the countries you chose, and the types of austerity employed; in the countries you mentioned, austerity meant merely reducing the rate of growth of spending (i.e. spending kept going up, but not as fast as before). Those countries, as you note, are not growing, and are slipping into recession.

The Baltic states (for the unmatriculated: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) real GDP is not flat or negative in either 2011 or 2012! Moreover, the "austerity" they employed was included real cuts in the size of their government (not merely reduction in the rate of growth). Aslo the Baltic states came out of much more severe recessions than the U.S. and as the figures show, with stronger growth:

Estonia: 2011 (+6.5%); 2012, to date (4%)
Latvia: 2011 (4%); 2012, to date (3%)
Lithuania: 2011 (6%); 2012, to date (3.4%)
___________________________________________

United Kingdom: 2011 (1.1%); 2012 to date (1.6%)
Germany: 2011 (2.7%); 2012, to date (1.3%)
___________________________________________
United States: 2011 (1.5%); 2012, to date (1.8%)

source:

http://knoema.com/tbocwag/gdp-statistics-by-country (http://knoema.com/tbocwag/gdp-statistics-by-country)

QuoteWhy did Estonia have a negative GDP rate last year?

- Ted

If by last year you mean 2011, Estonia did not have negative growth; it's GDP was +7.6% over the previous year (2010).

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/estonia-economy.fly (http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/estonia-economy.fly)

I could not find any source which showed Estonia having negative growth last year (2011); where did you find that info. Ted?

"America has had a dynamic economy historically, one that grows and changes in ways that are difficult to anticipate. This no doubt reflects in part the broad distribution of wealth and education that have also characterized the country historically. This was conscious and intentional. Walt Whitman, writing after the Civil War, said, 'The true gravitation-hold of liberalism in the United States will be a more universal ownership of property, general homesteads, general comfort—a vast, intertwining reticulation of wealth.... A great and varied nationality...were firmest held and knit by the principle of the safety and endurance of the aggregate of its middling property owners.' To project debt forward as the austerity-mongers do is to assume a predictable future economy, effectively a zero-sum economy that can increase wealth only by depressing costs—wages, safety standards, taxes—that is to say, by moving wealth away from the general population. This prophecy will fulfill itself as education is curtailed and 'reformed' to discourage intellectual autonomy, and so on. The new sense of insecurity, the awareness that the rules have suddenly changed, has a meaningful segment of the population furious at government, and desperate to be rid of the institutions that enable a culture of innovation."

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/164466/night-thoughts-baffled-humanist (http://www.thenation.com/print/article/164466/night-thoughts-baffled-humanist)

Quote from: eno on May 02, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
I could not find any source which showed Estonia having negative growth last year (2011); where did you find that info. Ted?

  The year after Estonia instituted its austerity program in 2009, its GDP fell from $19,2658 billion to $19,2166 billion, a decline of -0.3 %.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:EST&dl=en&hl=en&q=estonia+gdp (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:EST&dl=en&hl=en&q=estonia+gdp)

I enjoyed that piece, mark; I also agree with a lot (but not all) of what the author says re: America and Capitalism.

Just so it is clear, I am not suggesting that the U.S. needs or would even benefit from the type of austerity measures employed in Latvia, for example; actually, the fallacy in Ms. Robinson's argument is that there is some significant movement in this country which is pushing for austerity. Other than Libertarian purists, there is no one even suggesting that austerity be implemented.

I only read the (entire) piece once, but I noted that Ms. Robinson does not have a grasp of what  true "austerity" measures are, or perhaps, she purposely mis-perceives the position of conservatives and mis-defines their policies as calling for "austerity". One of the key elements of true "austerity" programs is tax hikes (which only President Obama and Democrats are recommending in this country).

So, lovely prose; interesting thoughts; but flawed, and fundamentally dishonest premise on the part of Marilynne Robinson.

The discussion of austerity on this thread was initiated by Ted; he compared certain European austerity programs  to American stimulus, applauding the latter approach as more successful. My response in reply # 43 sums up my position on the matter (i.e. neither I, nor anyone I favor politically) is suggesting "austerity" as a solution, at this point:

Quote...Finally, the measures which Tea-party Republicans are proposing (and which have passed the House several times) are geared towards merely containing/slowing the rate of growth in spending, and lowering taxes (which would stimulate investment and growth); these are hardly "austerity programs" (which in Europe, incidentally, included tax hikes). Obama, on the other hand, rejected his own panel's recommendations (Simpson-Bowles), and then presented a budget which didn't garner a single Democrat vote!

- eno; reply # 43; 4/30/12.

There was, unfortunately, no discussion on this thread of why "austerity" measures are necessary in Europe (and not here...yet); I merely pointed out that, where austerity was employed, it produced positive results only where there was a serious effort to reduce the size of government, not merely cut its rate of growth.

Because I am aware of the progressive debate tactic of reductio ad absurdum, let me again state that I favor a pro-growth economic policy which includes reducing the rate of growth of government, reducing taxes and onerous (not all) regulations on businesses (esp. small business). I do not favor a laissez-faire economy; I do not favor eliminating Social Security, public education, or oppose federal or state government (though I think that the federal government is so huge and unwieldy that it hurts more than helps the people and the economy). Finally, I do not believe that stimulus or Keynesian economic policies result in any meaningful benefit to the economy; such policies always delay recovery and dampen its strength (as evidenced by the inefficacy of F.D.R.'s and Obama's policies).

Again, thanks for providing something of substance and posting the piece!

eno

Quote from: eno on May 02, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
United States: 2011 (1.5%); 2012, to date (1.8%)

We seem to have dueling GDP rates.  Your numbers for 2012 are different than what Jake posted and different than what Forbes reported:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/04/27/u-s-economy-slowed-in-the-first-quarter-gdp-falls-to-2-2-growth/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/04/27/u-s-economy-slowed-in-the-first-quarter-gdp-falls-to-2-2-growth/)

Also, US GDP growth rate in 2010 (the year after the recession) was over 3%.

 Article about the decline in the German economy:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/germany-may-be-on-brink-of-recession-after-gdp-decline-economy.html (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-11/germany-may-be-on-brink-of-recession-after-gdp-decline-economy.html)

Germany May Be on Brink of Recession After GDP Decline

   Germany may be on the brink of recession after the sovereign debt crisis caused the economy to contract in the final quarter of 2011.

Europe's largest economy shrank "roughly" 0.25 percent in the fourth quarter from the third, the Federal Statistics Office in Wiesbaden said today in an unofficial estimate. Economists such as Christian Schulz at Berenberg Bank expect gross domestic product to contract again in the current quarter. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP.

"If the euro crisis does not get worse or is finally brought under control after another wave in early 2012, the German economy can rebound nicely from the summer onwards," said Schulz, a senior economist with Berenberg in London. "However, we see a 25 percent chance of the euro crisis remaining out of control longer, or completely spiraling out of control with a series of sovereign and bank defaults. In such a scenario, Germany would enter a major recession."


2012 Forecast

German growth will slow to 0.6 percent this year before recovering to 1.8 percent in 2013, the Bundesbank predicted on Dec. 19. The European Central Bank, which has cut interest rates to a record low and flooded the banking system with cash during the debt crisis, last month reduced its 2012 growth forecast for the 17-nation euro region to just 0.3 percent.

  Spanish industrial production fell the most in two years in November reflecting a contraction in the euro area's fourth- largest economy as the government prepares to implement a new wave of austerity. Output at factories, refineries and mines adjusted for the number of working days declined 7 percent from a year earlier, the most since October 2009, the National Statistics Institute in Madrid said today.

In the U.K., the goods-trade deficit widened more than economists forecast in November as exports dropped, the Office for National Statistics said. The trade gap widened to 8.64 billion pounds ($13.6 billion) from 7.87 billion pounds in October. Exports fell 1.5 percent on the month while imports rose 1.1 percent.

   The effects of Europe's debt crisis may cost the U.S. as much as half a percentage point in economic growth this year, Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jan Hatzius said at an event in Frankfurt today.

The U.S. Federal Reserve will release its Beige Book survey later today, and the Mortgage Bankers Association will give data on mortgage applications for the week ended Jan. 6.

"The debt crisis is unprecedented and economic forecasts in this environment are very difficult," said Joerg Kraemer, chief economist at Commerzbank AG in Frankfurt, who expects the German economy to contract "a little" in the first three months of this year. "For 2012 as a whole, we expect stagnation," he said.

....

 
  Other articles about a potential recession in Germany and the recessions in the rest of the Euro zone:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34459.html (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34459.html)



http://currentaffairs-businessnews.com/2012/02/17/euro-zone-gdp-declined-in-fourth-quarter-italy-and-netherlands-slip-into-recession/ (http://currentaffairs-businessnews.com/2012/02/17/euro-zone-gdp-declined-in-fourth-quarter-italy-and-netherlands-slip-into-recession/)

  Euro zone GDP declined in fourth quarter; Italy and Netherlands slip into recession

As per the latest official figures, two major euro zone economies Italy and Netherlands entered into recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Italy witnesses a GDP growth of -0.7% in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to -0.2% GDP growth in the third quarter while Netherlands witnessed a GDP growth of -0.7% in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to -0.4% GDP growth in the third quarter. Negative GDP growth for two consecutive quarters signifies recession.

At the same time, Euro zone's biggest economy Germany witnesses a GDP growth of -0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to 0.6% GDP growth in the third quarter and 3% GDP growth for the entire 2011. This is the first time, Germany's GDP declined since 2009. Euro zone's second biggest economy France witnesses a GDP growth of 0.2% in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to 0.3% GDP growth in the third quarter and 1.7% GDP growth for the entire 2011.

The GDP of the entire euro zone consisting of 17 nations declined by 0.3% in the fourth quarter but it has averted recession as the third quarter GDP growth was positive at 0.1%. This data is slightly better than the expectations of the economist and also confirms further downturn if the current euro zone crisis is not resolved now.

  And, let's not ignore what's going on in the UK:

http://www.rttnews.com/1827512/u-k-q4-gdp-decline-confirmed-at-0-2.aspx (http://www.rttnews.com/1827512/u-k-q4-gdp-decline-confirmed-at-0-2.aspx) 
 
  U.K. Q4 GDP Decline Confirmed At 0.2%

   Reflecting the adverse economic conditions, the U.K. gross domestic product contracted in the fourth quarter as estimated initially, driven by a sharp fall in business investment.

  GDP fell 0.2 percent sequentially in the fourth quarter, the second estimate released by the Office for National Statistics showed Friday. This was the first contraction in a year.

The ONS revised down the third quarter economic growth to 0.5 percent from 0.6 percent. From a year ago, GDP rose 0.7 percent in the fourth quarter, instead of 0.8 percent estimated in January.

In 2011 as a whole, GDP rose 0.8 percent. The economy has now recovered just under half of the output lost during the 2008-09 downturn, the ONS said.

The latest data and survey evidence indicate that the economy is clearly growing in early 2012, IHS Global Insight Chief U.K. Economist Howard Archer said. But as the economy faces serious domestic and international headwinds, it is likely to remain prone to relapses for some time to come, he added.

In the quarterly Inflation Report, Bank of England policymakers said the recovery path will be slow and uncertain amid substantial headwinds.

Yesterday, the European Commission said the U.K. economy will expand 0.6 percent this year, while it estimates a mild recession in the euro area.

The decline in production was revised to 1.4 percent from 1.2 percent, ONS reported. Meanwhile, the drop in construction was confirmed at 0.5 percent and the output of the service industries was unchanged as estimated.

The expenditure side breakdown of GDP showed recovery in consumer spending, while the weakness in investment deepened amid Eurozone crisis  ....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47169446 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/47169446)
 
  UK Slides Back Into Recession in First Double Dip Since 1970s


   Britain's economy slid into its second recession since the financial crisis after official data unexpectedly showed a fall in output in the first three months of 2012, piling pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron's embattled coalition government.

   The Office for National Statistics said Britain's gross domestic product fell 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 after contracting by 0.3 percent at the end of 2011, confounding forecasts for 0.1 percent growth.

Most economists had expected Britain's $2.4 trillion economy to eke out modest growth in the early 2012, but these forecasts were upset by the biggest fall in construction output in three years coupled with anaemic service sector growth and a fall in industrial output.

Wednesday's figures will be a deep blow for Britain's Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition, which has slid in opinion polls since a poorly received annual budget statement in March and risks embarrassment at local elections on May 3.

The government is also under pressure over revelations about its close relationship with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch.

The government desperately needs growth to achieve its overriding goal of eliminating Britain's large budget deficit over the next five years.

Britain's economy contracted by 7.1 percent during its 2008-2009 recession and recovery since has been slow, with headwinds from the euro zone debt crisis, government spending cuts, high inflation and a damaged banking sector.

Wednesday's data showed that output was still 4.3 percent below its peak in the first quarter of 2008, and the economy has only grown by 0.4 percent since the government came to power in the second quarter of 2010.

Output in Britain's service sector - which makes up more than three quarters of GDP - rose by just 0.1 percent in the first quarter after falling 0.1 percent in Q4 2011, kept down by a fall in output in the large business services and finance sector.

Industrial output was 0.4 percent lower, while construction - which accounts for less than 8 percent of GDP - contracted by 3.0 percent, the biggest fall since Q1 2009.

Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts growth of 0.8 percent this year.

Wednesday's data shows that first quarter output was no higher than a year earlier.

The Bank of England has warned that there is a risk of another contraction in the second quarter of 2012, due to an extra public holiday.

But unlike during the previous two quarters, it does not appear keen to provide further monetary stimulus through quantitative easing asset purchases, due to above-target inflation which looks stickier than before.

The BoE, and a number of private-sector economists, had argued before Wednesday that the underlying health of Britain's economy was stronger than ONS data suggested, due to relatively upbeat private-sector surveys and a fall in unemployment.

The ONS's preliminary estimates of GDP are the first released in the European Union, and are based partly on estimated data.

On average, they are revised by 0.1 percentage points up or down by the time a second revision is published two months later, but bigger moves are not uncommon.

  Unemployment rate in Europe goes over 10%:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/02/eurozone-crisis-canada-europe-greek-elections#block-12?tw_p=twt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/02/eurozone-crisis-canada-europe-greek-elections#block-12?tw_p=twt) 
 
  Eurozone crisis live: Unemployment hits record high as manufacturing slumps -

2 May 2012

• Eurozone unemployment hits 10.7%
• Factory output falls in most euro countries
• US weekly jobless figures disappoint markets
• Where will growth come from?
• Canada's finance minister blasts Europe over crisis

  One last post - from Fareed Zakaria:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/22/zakaria-europe-suffers-from-too-much-austerity/ (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/22/zakaria-europe-suffers-from-too-much-austerity/) 
 
April 22nd, 2012
09:44 AM ET

                       Europe suffers from too much austerity

  By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

  A new poll in the United States shows that Americans are still deeply frustrated at the slow pace of the economic recovery. That's understandable. Unemployment stays stubbornly high. But I was just in Europe, and they think America is booming.

Consider this: the U.S. economy is on track to grow between 2 and 3 percent this year. In Europe, by contrast, half the eurozone economies are going to actually shrink this year - and not one major European country will grow over 1%.

Last Thursday, Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, and former French Finanace Minister of France, said there were "dark clouds" hanging over the global recovery and that the eurozone was at the "epicenter of potential risk." Borrowing costs for countries like Spain, Italy and Greece are rising again.

What is going on? Didn't it look like the Europeans had managed to avert a crisis only a few weeks ago?

   Yes it did. Mario Draghi, Europe's new Central banker, had adopted a version of Ben Bernanke's policies and injected money into the European financial system and economy. But his efforts are now being undercut by the German Bundesbank, which reflects Germany's obsession about inflation even at the cost of growth.The larger failure, shared across Europe, has been too much austerity.

   Consider that data we started with. The U.S. economy, which received monetary and fiscal stimulus, will grow at well over 2% this year. European economies that have followed the path of cutting spending and raising taxes to reduce deficits are finding themselves in a downward spiral: cutting spending means laying off people, which means less demand for good and services, which means the economy shrinks, which - ironically - means lower tax revenues and thus larger budget deficits.

Take a look at Britain. Britain has followed a brave austerity plan, cutting government spending across the board and raising taxes. The result, British growth has stalled; the economy will grow barely 0.8% this year. And while its budget deficit was predicted to be under 13 billion dollars in February, it was in fact 24 billion dollars for that month alone.

After its austerity programs, Spain has hit 20% unemployment - 50% youth unemployment - and now has a much larger budget deficit than projected.

   Europe needs structural reforms that will cut spending over the long term - by raising retirement ages and cutting benefits. But it also needs pro-growth reforms that open up its labor market. But most importantly for now it needs to stop imposing austerity in a depressed economy and learn from something from the example across the Atlantic. Two or 2.5 percent growth might not look so great in America, but it's a lot better than negative 0.3 percent, which is the current estimate for the eurozone's economic growth.

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

Quote from: Ted on May 03, 2012, 12:42:21 PM

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

Amurcan austerity under Preznit Rmoney will be fortified with extra sprinkles.

Quote from: Ted on May 03, 2012, 12:42:21 PM

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

More good news today; the unemployment rate went down again! The reasons for the trend?

Some "faux" news from Obama "haters":

...U.S. employers cut back on hiring in April and the jobless rate fell as people gave up the hunt for work, a somber note on the economy that could hurt President Barack Obama's re-election chances....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-april-jobs-report-20120504,0,7577001.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-april-jobs-report-20120504,0,7577001.story)

...The unemployment rate fell from 8.2% to 8.1%, lowest since January 2009, as a net 342,000 Americans left the labor force, including many discouraged workers who gave up the job hunt....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-04/april-unemployment-report/54742120/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-04/april-unemployment-report/54742120/1)

...There was also a lot of chatter about the unemployment rate potentially dropping, but for the wrong reason - because discouraged workers are leaving the labor force. The financial crisis and Great Recession brought many new terms to our vocabularies, including "credit default swaps", "mortgage-backed securities" and "participation rate". Participation rate is the percentage of the working age population in the labor force and over the last 20 years, it has held at 66 to 67 percent. In April, the rate was 63.6 from 63.8 percent in March, which meant that 169,000 fewer people were in the labor force. Some of that drop is attributable to demographics-aging boomers are calling it quits. But a good chunk can be chalked up to frustrated would-be workers giving up their job searches for a while and opting out of the labor force....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57427667/unemployment-rate-drops-job-creation-stagnates/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57427667/unemployment-rate-drops-job-creation-stagnates/)

...The poor job market has been discouraging workers. The household survey, in which BLS calls up people and asks them about their employment status, produced several disappointing data points. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent in April from 8.2 percent in March, but that's largely because the labor force shrank by about 350,000 people in April. The labor force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and the number of people who said they are employed all fell in the month...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/april-jobs-report-more-same-135552516.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/april-jobs-report-more-same-135552516.html)

...But the good news isn't all that rosy. The economy created just 115,000 jobs last month, below expectations, and the slight ebb in the unemployment rate was chiefly due to people giving up on looking for work—and therefore no longer being counted in the figure...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/listless-april-jobs-figures-obama-plays-good-news-185133333.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/listless-april-jobs-figures-obama-plays-good-news-185133333.html)

Quote from: Ted on May 03, 2012, 12:42:21 PM

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

I know the reality of what's going on here in my portion of the U.S.  My husband has been unemployed for over 3 months and while he's been applying for plenty of jobs the last company that contacted him regarding his application stated they had over 800 applicants for said job.  He's dependable and a hard worker and in the 25 years we've been married he has never had a period of unemployment until now.  As for recovery here in America things are not looking good for many people.  They're losing their homes to foreclosure, trying to sell them frantically in a short sale and for many who are not listed as being unemployed, it's only because their unemployment benefits have run out and they're not even being counted.  I also wonder how many unemployed people have had to resort to jobs paying them well below what they made in their previous jobs.  But hey, maybe someone could just send me some Obama-made rose-colored glasses so I won't feel so bad.

Quote from: MRS. NORTHSIDER on May 04, 2012, 10:36:13 PM

......  My husband has been unemployed for over 3 months and while he's been applying for plenty of jobs the last company that contacted him regarding his application stated they had over 800 applicants for said job.  He's dependable and a hard worker and in the 25 years we've been married he has never had a period of unemployment until now. ........

Are you able to make your mortgage payments? Is other debt going unpaid because of the loss of income? Do you stand the chance of losing your home? Have you made contingency plans for the eventual? Are you using up/have used up savings/investments during this difficult time? Are you worried and frightened?

My wife & I certainly were. During an earlier recession, Reagan's. I lost my job on my wife's birthday, she had been already laid off. We had 2 house payments, a 1st. mortgage, and a 2nd. + a car payment, + a payment on 40 acres of wooded land up in the mountains of Northern Arizona. I tried to find work until the U.C. ran out, sure, we were plenty worried, she cried a lot, while I swore a lot. Know what we did?

Built a cabin in those woods, moved our belongings up there out of the city, lived a meager life of self-sustenance, without electric power or running water. Traded some tools for a milk goat. Traded some more for a wood-burning cookstove, there being plenty of trees for firewood (it got COLD up there!), got some chickens. Long story abbreviated, we lived a simple, happy life up there, away from the "system" which had spoiled us both. I lost the big gut, daily WORK will do that, never felt better in all my (then) 41 years. I applied for food stamps while there, but was turned down; our profile did not allow qualification, it was in Indian Country. The office manager assured me smugly if my skin had not been white, he would have been forced to OK our request! 20+ years I had paid into a system which REFUSED to help me the first time in my life when I needed it! Bitter? Hell, yes. But our life away from the city madness, we look back upon in envy, believe it or not!

There is much more to my story of unemployment, but let's stop here. I never blamed the "system", or any leader therein, for our plight. Instead, we focussed on what could WE do, to alleviate our difficulties.  berwynson

Quote from: berwynson on May 04, 2012, 11:09:11 PM

Quote from: MRS. NORTHSIDER on May 04, 2012, 10:36:13 PM

......  My husband has been unemployed for over 3 months and while he's been applying for plenty of jobs the last company that contacted him regarding his application stated they had over 800 applicants for said job.  He's dependable and a hard worker and in the 25 years we've been married he has never had a period of unemployment until now. ........

Are you able to make your mortgage payments? Is other debt going unpaid because of the loss of income? Do you stand the chance of losing your home? Have you made contingency plans for the eventual? Are you using up/have used up savings/investments during this difficult time? Are you worried and frightened?

My wife & I certainly were. During an earlier recession, Reagan's. I lost my job on my wife's birthday, she had been already laid off. We had 2 house payments, a 1st. mortgage, and a 2nd. + a car payment, + a payment on 40 acres of wooded land up in the mountains of Northern Arizona. I tried to find work until the U.C. ran out, sure, we were plenty worried, she cried a lot, while I swore a lot. Know what we did?

Built a cabin in those woods, moved our belongings up there out of the city, lived a meager life of self-sustenance, without electric power or running water. Traded some tools for a milk goat. Traded some more for a wood-burning cookstove, there being plenty of trees for firewood (it got COLD up there!), got some chickens. Long story abbreviated, we lived a simple, happy life up there, away from the "system" which had spoiled us both. I lost the big gut, daily WORK will do that, never felt better in all my (then) 41 years. I applied for food stamps while there, but was turned down; our profile did not allow qualification, it was in Indian Country. The office manager assured me smugly if my skin had not been white, he would have been forced to OK our request! 20+ years I had paid into a system which REFUSED to help me the first time in my life when I needed it! Bitter? Hell, yes. But our life away from the city madness, we look back upon in envy, believe it or not!

There is much more to my story of unemployment, but let's stop here. I never blamed the "system", or any leader therein, for our plight. Instead, we focussed on what could WE do, to alleviate our difficulties.  berwynson

We'll make do until he finds another job.  I have never been one to live beyond my means and know how to economize.  That being said, I don't picture myself moving to "bumf**k" Missouri or Arizona or any of those other places and chopping wood and becoming a "doomsday prepper" or whatever you want to call that lifestyle.  Not that I couldn't, but I don't want to.  I still have children here to consider.  I'm glad you didn't blame the system or any leader therein and are so "democratic".  I, on the other hand, am not so "grateful" for this life lesson and will blame whomever the hell I want to.

  Yes, Eno, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is declining.  An 8.1% unemployment rate in the U.S. is better than the 10.7% unemployment rate in the EuroZone right now.

  The interesting thing about the employment numbers yesterday are that private sector jobs are what they were before the Bush Depression started.

  It is the public sector that has not made up the lost jobs.

  Couple of other things to consider - Since we live in a global economy, the lead weight of Europe is slowing the economic growth by .5% in the US in terms of economic growth. Strange how the Obama haters don't want to admit that fact.

Second, the Bush Depression was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.  It's going to take longer to get out of such a deep downturn.

  Would I like to see better economic numbers in the US?  Yes. 

  But I think, outside of the Obama Haters, people recognize what's going on in Europe affects the US; they recognize that we are coming out of a depression deeper than anything we've seen since the 1930s.

  There is also the fact that many of the "lost" jobs are in the public sector. Obama's policies have created jobs in the private sector to the level they were at before the Bush Depression started.

  It's the public sector (i.e. the government) where the jobs have not been made up.

  That sounds like the opposite of "socialist" policies.

Quote from: MRS. NORTHSIDER on May 04, 2012, 11:50:48 PM
We'll make do until he finds another job.  I have never been one to live beyond my means and know how to economize.  That being said, I don't picture myself moving to "bumf**k" Missouri or Arizona or any of those other places and chopping wood and becoming a "doomsday prepper" or whatever you want to call that lifestyle.  Not that I couldn't, but I don't want to.  I still have children here to consider.  I'm glad you didn't blame the system or any leader therein and are so "democratic".  I, on the other hand, am not so "grateful" for this life lesson and will blame whomever the hell I want to.

I make amends for striking deep & hurtful feelings; that was not my intent. However, to explain our circumstances more fully, we had bought woods property with intent of spending leisure time there, for "someday". With no hope of income in sight within the foreseeable future, we did what we had to. Not everyone, obviously you people included, would see our situation as viable for themselves, beyond a doubt.

What I didn't consider, or maybe know, then, but am more fully aware of now, is the extent to which Americans' actual circumstances and destinies are manipulated by elected officials; that's why I felt most of the blame for being in dire straits, was accountable to my own actions: 2 mortgages, uncertain job future, lots of personal "toys", overspending, no savings, etc.

I do not consider myself "democratic". It is of course easy for me now to talk of, and analyze, our time of plight  back then, but nothing I contribute can release the hold of your own circumstances. One thing I see now is that long ago, but within my own lifetime, society was more "self-healing" than it appears to be now. In my mind it is surely undesirable to see Government today exercising massive control over a "free-market" economy. Persons such as yourself see little benefit to this.

So, please do blame "whomever the hell" you want to for your plight. So long as it's someone manipulating the lives of others, I shall offer no argument.   berwynson

French election analysis: will Francois Hollande be a wrong turn to the Left?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9248242/French-election-analysis-will-Francois-Hollande-be-a-wrong-turn-to-the-Left.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9248242/French-election-analysis-will-Francois-Hollande-be-a-wrong-turn-to-the-Left.html)

The anti-austerity bandwagon will gain momentum if Francois Hollande is elected as president, but its wheels may yet come off, argues Martin Vander Weyer...

...But many voters have migrated to anti-austerity parties well to the left of Pasok, others to the far right - and a chaotic result could lead to rapid unravelling of the Greek bail-out deal that is barely two months old.

Rather than being seen as a step towards euro-implosion, however, renewed mayhem in Greece will be hailed by many Europeans as evidence that extreme austerity was the wrong answer in the first place - that the policies imposed by Brussels, the European Central Bank and the IMF are too damaging, and politically unsustainable; and that the death-spiral of the Greek and Spanish economies is proof that an urgent U-turn in the direction of tax-fuelled Keynesian stimulus is the only way out.

Barack Obama's supposed success in promoting US recovery by this method is held up as the model, without acknowledging that recovery comes quicker in America because its public sector is half the size of most of Europe's, its taxes are lower and its businesses are largely free of Brussels-style red tape...

Quote from: MRS. NORTHSIDER on May 04, 2012, 10:36:13 PM

Quote from: Ted on May 03, 2012, 12:42:21 PM

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

I know the reality of what's going on here in my portion of the U.S.  My husband has been unemployed for over 3 months and while he's been applying for plenty of jobs the last company that contacted him regarding his application stated they had over 800 applicants for said job.  He's dependable and a hard worker and in the 25 years we've been married he has never had a period of unemployment until now.  As for recovery here in America things are not looking good for many people.  They're losing their homes to foreclosure, trying to sell them frantically in a short sale and for many who are not listed as being unemployed, it's only because their unemployment benefits have run out and they're not even being counted.  I also wonder how many unemployed people have had to resort to jobs paying them well below what they made in their previous jobs.  But hey, maybe someone could just send me some Obama-made rose-colored glasses so I won't feel so bad.

The thing that I've noticed in this current jobs situation is that the lion's share of people who were let go in the 2009 purges and the more recent one(s) are older. Or to be precise, mid-40s and older.

My wife got let go from the company where she had worked for 20 years. They fired half of their staff that day last January, with tales of economic woe and uncertain times.

Now, 3 months later, they are staffed back up and actively hiring ... and the staff (except for a few managers) is all in their 20s and 30s. People over 40 are more expensive employees, and if given the choice, an employer will always choose the younger candidate. Younger people are also, usually, more attractive and the same rule holds true.

I have a good friend who owns a recruiting/placement agency, and he has given many a keynote address about this.

But back to being expensive. One of the biggest woes of being unemployed is a lack of functional healthcare. Having healthcare tied to employment is one of the most absurd things this nation has ever done.

And, of course, we're all just blips in time. Life goes on with or without us. Last night, at the Friendly Tap's 45th anniversary party, I marveled at what a different crowd was in the joint than when I first moved here in 2004. I spent some time talking with a young dude who was probably in his mid-late 20s. He had been renting in Oak Park, but just bought a short-sale near 14th and Harvey.

He's excited to be in Berwyn, and sees a bright future here.

Quote from: Boris on May 06, 2012, 02:39:21 PM
People over 40 are more expensive employees, and if given the choice, an employer will always choose the younger candidate.

On an interview many years ago ( actually it was the 4th trip after being tag-teamed by their entire management staff) I was told I was out of the running because the team decided I was older qualified.
He meant to say "over qualified" but the truth slipped out !

Boris - My husband fits in with the trend you're talking about and he also lost his job in January  He was making more money than most other employees in his position and was also older than them - he's 50.  When they said they were going to trim their workforce I had a very bad feeling about what would happen and it did.  At least there was some severance and now unemployment and I've been able to pick up more hours at my job.  Hopefully, he'll find something else soon.  He's lucky in the sense that he's had several careers so he's not limited to one line of work.  This is a scary time, nonetheless.

Quote from: eno on May 06, 2012, 09:08:33 AM

Barack Obama's supposed success in promoting US recovery by this method is held up as the model, without acknowledging that recovery comes quicker in America because its public sector is half the size of most of Europe's, its taxes are lower and its businesses are largely free of Brussels-style red tape...

Good post Eno.

So, I take it you're proud of what Obama did, given that, under the Obama Recovery, private sector jobs are what they were when the Bush Depression started and that the public sector has shrunk under Obama.

  Doesn't sound like Socialist policy to me...  LOL

Quote from: Ted on May 06, 2012, 03:31:51 PM

Quote from: eno on May 06, 2012, 09:08:33 AM

Barack Obama's supposed success in promoting US recovery by this method is held up as the model, without acknowledging that recovery comes quicker in America because its public sector is half the size of most of Europe's, its taxes are lower and its businesses are largely free of Brussels-style red tape...

Good post Eno.

So, I take it you're proud of what Obama did, given that, under the Obama Recovery, private sector jobs are what they were when the Bush Depression started and that the public sector has shrunk under Obama.

  Doesn't sound like Socialist policy to me...  LOL

Ted:

There are about 2 million less jobs in our economy now than when Obama took office. Also, like the "austerity" folks in Europe, Obama is looking to raise taxes on job creators and the rich. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is up under Obama. The number of federal employees has grown under Obama, as well.

Obama's goal (and that of his supporters) is to replicate the Socialism that ruined most of Europe; As frenetic as Obama has been in trying to get our economy over the cliff (i.e. to Utopia, from his perspective) we are still nowhere near the type of public spending, entitlement state, and size of public sector which is paralyzing and asphyxiating the economies of Europe.

That is why true growth policies (reduced taxation and slowing government growth and regulations) has a chance of turning things around here in the U.S.. Conversely, in Europe, it is apparently too late, and there is a great probability that what Euro-Socialists regard as "growth" policies (i.e. more government spending) will pitch the continent into a series of defaults, destroy the E.U. and the Euro, and make all those expensive Bordeaux and Champagne wines more affordable for us in the coming years...

Quote from: Boris on May 06, 2012, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: MRS. NORTHSIDER on May 04, 2012, 10:36:13 PM

Quote from: Ted on May 03, 2012, 12:42:21 PM

  The Obama hater's so-called "facts" don't match the reality of what's going on in Europe.

  A 2.2% increase in the U.S. GDP and a declining unemployment rate in the U.S.  is a hell of a lot better than double dip recessions, negative or stagnant GDP and a 10.7% unemployment rate in the Euro Zone.

But, wait, according to the Obama haters, we're not supposed to look at Europe or compare the crisis in Europe with the recovery in America.

  PSHAW!

I know the reality of what's going on here in my portion of the U.S.  My husband has been unemployed for over 3 months and while he's been applying for plenty of jobs the last company that contacted him regarding his application stated they had over 800 applicants for said job.  He's dependable and a hard worker and in the 25 years we've been married he has never had a period of unemployment until now.  As for recovery here in America things are not looking good for many people.  They're losing their homes to foreclosure, trying to sell them frantically in a short sale and for many who are not listed as being unemployed, it's only because their unemployment benefits have run out and they're not even being counted.  I also wonder how many unemployed people have had to resort to jobs paying them well below what they made in their previous jobs.  But hey, maybe someone could just send me some Obama-made rose-colored glasses so I won't feel so bad.

The thing that I've noticed in this current jobs situation is that the lion's share of people who were let go in the 2009 purges and the more recent one(s) are older. Or to be precise, mid-40s and older.

My wife got let go from the company where she had worked for 20 years. They fired half of their staff that day last January, with tales of economic woe and uncertain times.

Now, 3 months later, they are staffed back up and actively hiring ... and the staff (except for a few managers) is all in their 20s and 30s. People over 40 are more expensive employees, and if given the choice, an employer will always choose the younger candidate. Younger people are also, usually, more attractive and the same rule holds true.

I have a good friend who owns a recruiting/placement agency, and he has given many a keynote address about this.

But back to being expensive. One of the biggest woes of being unemployed is a lack of functional healthcare. Having healthcare tied to employment is one of the most absurd things this nation has ever done.

And, of course, we're all just blips in time. Life goes on with or without us. Last night, at the Friendly Tap's 45th anniversary party, I marveled at what a different crowd was in the joint than when I first moved here in 2004. I spent some time talking with a young dude who was probably in his mid-late 20s. He had been renting in Oak Park, but just bought a short-sale near 14th and Harvey.

He's excited to be in Berwyn, and sees a bright future here.

Very nice post, Boris!

Incidentally, do you know how health-insurance got tied to employment?? Government regulation wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it?

Here's a big hint as to how health-care got tied to employment and employers:

(http://www.bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ted-kennedy-in-neck-brace-following-kopechne-drowning.jpg)

Eno, remember this guy was your own source (from another thread)

Quote from: buzz on May 06, 2012, 09:54:01 PM
This Is What's Crushing GDP
Joe Weisenthal|April 27, 2012
A quick reminder: What's holding GDP back is the drag on government spending. Austerity, basically.

I think you have refuted yourself !
Your own source also disagreed with your statements; government employees have not grown under Obama. 

Eno,

Buzz is right.  Look behind the numbers. It is government employment that has decreased, not the private sector.

  The Obama Haters should take off their blinders.

Quote from: Ted on May 07, 2012, 07:03:17 AM

Eno,

Buzz is right.  Look behind the numbers. It is government employment that has decreased, not the private sector.

  The Obama Haters should take off their blinders.

Ted,

Actually, both you and Buzz are wrong.

Please look at my reply # 98 in this thread; I am talking about "federal employees." The number of federal employees has increased under Obama, not decreased; Obama as president is the chief executive of the federal government, and the federal government has grown under Obama (in almost every way imaginable) not shrunk.

Here it is; from the donkey's mouth:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/)

...Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent, while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan's first three years...

...If Mr. Obama had had his way, state and local government job losses in 2011 could have been reduced with more federal assistance, but such proposals were blocked by Republicans in Congress...

...There is no reason to think Mr. Obama is as happy about the reduction in [state, local]government workers as some Republicans. But like it or not, the Obama administration has turned out to be anything but a big-government one...

  So, federal employment decreased in 2011 but increased in 2009 and 2010.

  How much of the "increase" in 2010 was due to the hiring of census takers?  and how much was due to putting more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer those questions first before you spout lies about Obama.  Federal employment increased in 2010 because of the hiring of census takers. Those census takers were no longer employed in 2011.

  The 1980 census occurred under Carter, not Reagan.

btw, how much of the decrease in state and local government employment were the laying off of teachers?  Do you believe it is a good thing to have less teachers today than we did when the Bush Depression started?

  And, how is it the Republicans in Congress could "block" an increase in state and local employees?  Did the Republican Congress suddenly take over all the school boards in the country?

(http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20167662d473c970b-800wi)

http://nyti.ms/ITFLMa (http://nyti.ms/ITFLMa)


"Of the administrations shown, overall growth in Mr. Obama’s first three years has been the slowest. But that is largely because government spending did not accelerate as it normally does when the private sector is weak. The private sector grew faster in the first three years of the Obama administration than it did in three of the previous five administrations — the exception being Bill Clinton’s administrations, when private sector growth was more rapid. In both of George W. Bush’s terms as well as in the first three years of the George H. W. Bush administration, though, the private sector grew more slowly."

"No administration has reduced aggregate government spending as a precentage of GDP as much as Obama's in forty years. If you look at the full chart, back to George HW Bush, you reach an inescapable conclusion: the biggest spenders and borrowers are Republicans and the most fiscally conservative presidents have been Democrats. Given the last two decades, the Tea Party, if they really want to shrink government, should be voting for Obama."

This is the latest regressive move eno !  It's basic economics, guns and butter, and the Republicons are more interested in the guns.  People are hurting and the Republicons are sabre rattling about Iran and Syria.  They'd rather cut food stamps and social services. Shameful and disgusting.

GOP plan boosts Pentagon, cuts social programs

ANDREW TAYLOR
From Associated Press
May 07, 2012 10:41 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republicans who control the House are using cuts to food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a crippling wave of budget cuts come January.

The reductions, while controversial, are but a fraction of what Republicans called for in the broader, nonbinding budget plan they passed in March. Totaling a little more than $300 billion over a decade, the new cuts are aimed less at tackling $1 trillion-plus government deficits and more at preventing cuts to troop levels and military

Quote from: eno on May 07, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
..  while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan's first three years...

Reagan?  Seriously?

  Eno, you do realize how Reagan got himself out of the recession of 1981, right?

It was spend, spend, and more spend.  Reagan drastically increased the deficit to fuel the economy.

  How is what Reagan did any different than what you accuse Obama of doing?

Why is the Reagan plan of ballooning government spending to fuel the economy good but Obama's plan is bad?

  The Republican hypocrisy on this is showing more and more.

Here's another one eno.  The Republicons don't believe women deserve preventative healthcare.  Ripped from the headlines. 
 
Senate turns to partisan fight over student loans
From Associated Press
May 07, 2012 3:54 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is the newest arena in the election-year face-off over federal student loans, and both sides are starting out by pounding away at each other.

With Congress returning from a weeklong spring recess, the Senate plans to vote Tuesday on whether to start debating a Democratic plan to keep college loan interest rates for 7.4 million students from doubling on July 1. The $6 billion measure would be paid for by collecting more Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from high-earning owners of some privately held corporations.

Republicans want a vote on their own bill, which like the Democrats' would freeze today's 3.4 percent interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans for one more year. It would be financed by eliminating a preventive health program established by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Quote from: buzz on May 07, 2012, 02:07:05 PM
Here's another one eno.  The Republicons don't believe women deserve preventative healthcare. 

Please! For once and for all, unless Mr. Webster has agreed to revise, there is no such word as "PREVENTATIVE" in the language. It is "PREVENTIVE".

I was reprimanded once severerly for this incorrect usage in a technical paper I wrote.

berwynson

Quote from: Ted on May 07, 2012, 12:22:48 PM

Quote from: eno on May 07, 2012, 08:26:18 AM
..  while the total fell by the same amount in Mr. Reagan's first three years...

Reagan?  Seriously?

  Eno, you do realize how Reagan got himself out of the recession of 1981, right?

It was spend, spend, and more spend.  Reagan drastically increased the deficit to fuel the economy.

  How is what Reagan did any different than what you accuse Obama of doing?

Why is the Reagan plan of ballooning government spending to fuel the economy good but Obama's plan is bad?

  The Republican hypocrisy on this is showing more and more.

Ted:

I'm surprised OPS isn't calling you out on your deception  ;)

The statement about Reagan is: (1) a quote from the NYT, not my assertion, and (2) the number of federal employees (which went down under Reagan, according to NYT) is a different statistic than the deficit.

Reagan got out of the recession of the Carter inflationary/stagnation/depression by cutting marginal tax rates and deregulating; later, the Congress pushed to raise taxes; Reagan was promised $3 of spending cuts for every $1 tax increase; taxes went up, but spending never went down.

Reagan spent a lot on military; the useful idiots on the left called him Raygun! They pilloried him for his missile defense proposal (which was a threat to their Soviet fellow travelers). The result of the military spending was that it bankrupted the Soviets (not us) and created a peace-dividend which allowed for an eventual surplus.

Reagan also instituted/accelerated the war on drugs, with big-government programs that created draconian civil-asset forfeiture laws which, in many cases, allowed the government to steal a person's assets unless the person could prove that the assets were untainted. This, to me, is one of the down-sides of the Reagan legacy. 

Eno, you're being deceptive again.

  The fact of the matter is that Reagan, for all his chest thumping about balancing the budget, increased the deficit tremendously and that fueled the economic recovery in the 1980s.

That's the same thing you criticize Obama for.

Quote from: Ted on May 08, 2012, 06:44:42 AM

Eno, you're being deceptive again.

  The fact of the matter is that Reagan, for all his chest thumping about balancing the budget, increased the deficit tremendously and that fueled the economic recovery in the 1980s.

That's the same thing you criticize Obama for.

Then I take it you your admiration for Reagan was as fervent and unconditional as it is for Obama?

Quote from: eno on May 08, 2012, 06:47:33 AM
Then I take it you your admiration for Reagan was as fervent and unconditional as it is for Obama?

Take a guess at who I voted for in 1980 and 1984.  ;)

Quote from: berwynson on May 07, 2012, 10:21:20 PM

Quote from: buzz on May 07, 2012, 02:07:05 PM
Here's another one eno.  The Republicons don't believe women deserve preventative healthcare. 

Please! For once and for all, unless Mr. Webster has agreed to revise, there is no such word as "PREVENTATIVE" in the language. It is "PREVENTIVE".

I was reprimanded once severely for this incorrect usage in a technical paper I wrote.

berwynson

A-MEN!!!!!! +1  This makes me absolutely BONKERS.

it's no reason to go nucular   :-*

See, language is a living thing, and it changes and grows all the time, and fixed spelling, grammar, and usage has never existed, particularly in English. We don't speak or write like out parents, and they didn't speak or write like their parents, let alone Jefferson, Shakespeare, or Chaucer.
We also don't speak or write like the English, Australians, or Canadians, all of whom occasionally spell words or construct sentences differently than we do.

As it happens, Webster DOES recognize "preventative" as a variation on preventative.
http://i.word.com/ithesaurus/preventative (http://i.word.com/ithesaurus/preventative)

Are you equally offended by "representative" in stead of "representive"?

English is a beautiful and profoundly FLEXIBLE language. It's what makes it so hard to learn, but also what makes it so wonderfully adaptable.

Rob, I thought it likely "preventative" is now accepted. It just stuck with me all these years, for having been reprimanded for using it in a paper.

At one time, it actually was acceptable, and expected, to satisfy the boss!    berwynson

Here's another example of republicons spending, on guns, not people.  You wonder why our enonomy is recovering so slowly ?  The republicons won't support the Violence Against Wonems Act (VAWA) but they'll piss your money away on wasteful and unnecessary weapons.  Even the Pentagon doesn't want it.
 
   
House panel OKs missile defense site on East Coast
DONNA CASSATA
From Associated Press
May 09, 2012 10:13 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday backed construction of a missile defense site on the East Coast, rejecting Pentagon arguments that the facility is unnecessary and Democratic complaints that the nearly $5 billion project amounts to wasteful spending..........

1Q12 GDP growth was revised DOWN today to just 1.9%.  Recall economists had originally forecasted 2.5% growth.

Wait, the economy is growing? Last year, weren't conservatives on this board saying Amercia was on the brink of an Obama recession to match the Bush recession?

To cap off a week of terrible economic stats, the U-6 unemployment rate INCREASED 14.8% for May.

Which one of the president's policies have raised unemployment?

It's the taxes he's raised on the job creators, right? Must be all those new taxes he imposed on job creators since he came in office.

How much have taxes increased on job creators since the president took office? One hundred percent? Two hundred?

Wow.  The Huffington Post's main page leads with "TOTAL MESS" and links to articles on the Obama economy.

How much coverage is HuffPo giving to the specific policies of the president that raised unemployment? Are there any articles about all the taxes he raised on job creators?

Did the labor force expand this time around? I remember last time people on this board talked about unemployment---hoo boy, were they all about how the labor force was shrinking. I'm sure if they're unhappy about the jobs numbers this time around, it has to do with the labor force shrinking further still, right?

That's a small point, though. I'm sure the real problem is all the taxes the president raised on job creators.

Quote from: markberwyn on June 01, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Which one of the president's policies have raised unemployment?

For four years Obama has been telling us that government creates jobs; what went wrong?

Quote from: markberwyn on June 01, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Which one of the president's policies have raised unemployment?

I'm thinking of starting a small business.

How many employees can I hire without having to worry about getting ensnared in ObamaCare regulations?

Will I need a lawyer to figure out all the red tape?

Also, I need a loan to open up; anyone know of a small, local bank that will work with me despite Dodd-Frank? The fewer and fewer big banks around won't give me a loan!

If I do open this small business, I'd like to make a profit (gotta eat and keep a roof over my head) but I'm not sure what President Obama would consider a "fair" as opposed to an "obscene" profit.

Oh, and speaking of taxes, there's some guy out there who keeps saying that the super-rich (those who pull in $200,000/year) need to pay their "fair share;" Can an accountant, a tax-lawyer, a financial planner, anyone at all tell me what that "fair share" will be? If I am in a position to expand next year, and President Obama raises my taxes, what will I use to pay the two, three, four new employees I'd need to help me? A loan?

I'm shocked; shocked to find that unemployment is going on here!

Quote from: eno on June 03, 2012, 09:07:01 PM

Quote from: markberwyn on June 01, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Which one of the president's policies have raised unemployment?

I'm thinking of starting a small business.

How many employees can I hire without having to worry about getting ensnared in ObamaCare regulations?

Will I need a lawyer to figure out all the red tape?

Also, I need a loan to open up; anyone know of a small, local bank that will work with me despite Dodd-Frank? The fewer and fewer big banks around won't give me a loan!

If I do open this small business, I'd like to make a profit (gotta eat and keep a roof over my head) but I'm not sure what President Obama would consider a "fair" as opposed to an "obscene" profit.

Oh, and speaking of taxes, there's some guy out there who keeps saying that the super-rich (those who pull in $200,000/year) need to pay their "fair share;" Can an accountant, a tax-lawyer, a financial planner, anyone at all tell me what that "fair share" will be? If I am in a position to expand next year, and President Obama raises my taxes, what will I use to pay the two, three, four new employees I'd need to help me? A loan?

I'm shocked; shocked to find that unemployment is going on here!

Talk to Green Choice Bank.  They are pretty friendly to local people.

Google might help you with the other questions.

Quote from: eno on June 03, 2012, 09:07:01 PM

Quote from: markberwyn on June 01, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Which one of the president's policies have raised unemployment?

I'm thinking of starting a small business.

How many employees can I hire without having to worry about getting ensnared in ObamaCare regulations?

Will I need a lawyer to figure out all the red tape?

Also, I need a loan to open up; anyone know of a small, local bank that will work with me despite Dodd-Frank? The fewer and fewer big banks around won't give me a loan!

If I do open this small business, I'd like to make a profit (gotta eat and keep a roof over my head) but I'm not sure what President Obama would consider a "fair" as opposed to an "obscene" profit.

Oh, and speaking of taxes, there's some guy out there who keeps saying that the super-rich (those who pull in $200,000/year) need to pay their "fair share;" Can an accountant, a tax-lawyer, a financial planner, anyone at all tell me what that "fair share" will be? If I am in a position to expand next year, and President Obama raises my taxes, what will I use to pay the two, three, four new employees I'd need to help me? A loan?

I'm shocked; shocked to find that unemployment is going on here!

Anywhere in this fluff did you answer the question?
While you're not answering questions will you not answer a few more?
Who raises taxes?
Who controls the public purse?
When Medicare was created, what percentage of GDP did health care represent?
What percentage in 2012?
When medicare was passed, what percentage of hospitals were run by NPOs?
Do sick people cause soaring health care costs?
Do stock prices react to business or do businesses react to the stock market?
After being handed such a robust, vibrant, diverse and health economy built by 40 years of Reproblican, right leaning policies, how did this president destroy it as soon as he put his Muslim hand on our Christian bible?

If you want to own a small business, I suggest that you acquire a large business and just wait.
If you acquire as many as Willard, you too can be worth mega-millions.

The Gobsmacking Drop In Government Spending Under Obama
SAHIL KAPUR - JUNE 5, 2012, 5:04 AM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/federal-reserve-economic-data-chart-real-government-spending-obama-recovery.php?ref=fpblg)

The conventional wisdom that President Obama has overseen a dramatic surge in government spending has always been shaky. But it faces perhaps its starkest rebuttal in new figures that reveal the sharpest decline of the last half-century in real federal, state and local spending during this presidency.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the new figures in the Federal Reserve Economic Data arrive just days after a lousy jobs report that has exacerbated fears that the economy may be in worse shape than expected. In recent years, state and local governments have received little federal aid to close their budget shortfalls and have therefore made large spending cuts since Obama's 2009 stimulus expired.

"That saps demand still further aggravating a downturn and inhibiting a recovery," said Chad Stone, chief economist for the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "State fiscal assistance in the 2009 recovery act was largely gone by 2011 and state spending cutbacks continued due to pressures for budget austerity in many states and at the federal level."

The government spending cuts have come about amid a mood of austerity incubated by Republicans across the country shortly after Obama took office.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gov-spending-00.png)

For a longer-term historical perspective, the drop in overall government spending after Obama's stimulus funds expired in 2010 has been the sharpest since the 1950s, when the United States was demobilizing after the Korean War.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gov-spending-decades.png)

The new numbers provide more grist for the debate, such as it is, over whether contractionary economic policies slow growth. Conservatives say government spending is the problem, not the solution. Keynesian economists, notably Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman, have argued that pulling back on government spending while economic output remains below its potential threatens the recovery.

"Gosh, I wonder why the economy is underperforming?" Krugman wrote (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/1937-2/) of the data.

Quote from: eno on June 03, 2012, 09:07:01 PM
..  I'm thinking of starting a small business....

Well,  if you're opening it in Berwyn, the local government will give you tons of money from TIF funds (courtesy of tax payer dollars) and the local government might even give you a low rate loan to pay off your mortgage in full.

At least the left is acknowledging the terrible "rebound" under Obama.  That is a start.

Quote from: Boris on June 05, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
Perhaps not coincidentally, the new figures in the Federal Reserve Economic Data arrive just days after a lousy jobs report that has exacerbated fears that the economy may be in worse shape than expected.

Quote from: Boris on June 05, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
Gosh, I wonder why the economy is underperforming?"

Quote from: jake on June 05, 2012, 07:06:03 PM
At least the left is acknowledging the terrible "rebound" under Obama.  That is a start.

Quote from: Boris on June 05, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
Perhaps not coincidentally, the new figures in the Federal Reserve Economic Data arrive just days after a lousy jobs report that has exacerbated fears that the economy may be in worse shape than expected.

Quote from: Boris on June 05, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
Gosh, I wonder why the economy is underperforming?"

but, but but ... I thought government spending was the problem??!!?? The debt ceiling!! The 50% who pay no income tax...

"Republicans are always quick to attack Democrats for waging "class warfare" whenever they suggest that the wealthy ought to pay more taxes to help reduce the deficit and prevent the decimation of programs to aid the poor. But Republicans also engage in class warfare when they suggest that the poor are to blame for deficits because so few pay federal income taxes. Those among the wealthy who are paying no income taxes at least deserve equal time."
- - Bruce Bartlett (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/rich-nontaxpayers/)

So, you agree with Krugman ... yes?

Boris,

The problem is that the "recovery" under Obama is among the worst in our history. 

He had the benefit of 2 years in which his party controlled congress, and they still control the upper chamber.  The policies he put in place have failed!  The Left is finally waking up to that fact. 

IF this failure was the result of too little spending (as you and your fellow Dems now seem to claim), then that policy of holding back spending was Obama's choice.  Look no further than the games he played with the timing of the stimulus outflows.  How much was spent in years 1 and 2?  And how much was saved up for the election?

The bottom line is Obama is a failure.  Dems are finally acknowledging the stats, but still trying to place blame anywhere else.

Quote from: jake on June 05, 2012, 08:13:13 PM
Boris,

The problem is that the "recovery" under Obama is among the worst in our history. 

He had the benefit of 2 years in which his party controlled congress, and they still control the upper chamber.  The policies he put in place have failed!  The Left is finally waking up to that fact. 

IF this failure was the result of too little spending (as you and your fellow Dems now seem to claim), then that policy of holding back spending was Obama's choice.  Look no further than the games he played with the timing of the stimulus outflows.  How much was spent in years 1 and 2?  And how much was saved up for the election?

The bottom line is Obama is a failure.  Dems are finally acknowledging the stats, but still trying to place blame anywhere else.

... but WHY??