GDP Goes Negative In Fourth Quarter

Slavery cannot exist under truer forms of capitalism due to a requirement for voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.

 

So 'yes'?





​

 

Regulation is not Prohibition. We have a Commerce Clause. Any questions?

 

Does that mean 'yes'?




​

 

it means no because Regulation cannot include Prohibition.

 

We cannot prohibit slavery or the trade of nuclear weapons?




​

 

Some forms of "slavery" may exist, but not under truer forms of capitalism which requires voluntary social transactions which may result in mutually beneficial trade.

And,

black markets already exist.

 

11-1-14

10-31-14

11-26-14

U.S. Economy Grew 5% In Third Quarter, Up Sharply From Earlier Estimates
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanth...rd-quarter-up-sharply-from-earlier-estimates/

Yet another verification of the spot on accuracy of the predictions of our conservative friends.

I know, I know, they'll come back and say the numbers are bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Which leads to the question: If Obama fixed the numbers, why would he "fix" a lower GDP number just before the 2014 mid term elections, and then revise it higher later?

Conservatives make sense, if you ignore reality.

 

i've never seen those two admit to being wrong and they often are

 

"Much of the increase came from consumer spending on health care"

So Obamacare's not working and lowering cost, in fact those huge cost increases are driving a rise in GDP and you think that is a good thing?

Fortunately there was higher business investment too and once we get the Republicans in control of congress perhaps more pro-business policies can be passed to keep the recovery growing. That is unless Obama continues to stand in the way of economic growth.

 

that's what the gop has been doing ever since obama was elected

 

Non sequitur.

Republican austerity isn't pro growth. Though if history is any guide, if they get into the WH we'll see spending sky rocket.

 

ROFLMAO, now isn't this rich. The hugely increasing health care cost were a major reason for the upward revision and this increase under Obamacare, which was promised to lower it, is a non sequiter.

Funny how growth increased under it along with a lowering of the deficit. So you oppose increased growth and lower deficits. Seems to me you were harping on the lower deficits and now complain about what helped create them. Care to square that circle?

Compared to the Democrats taking it from $161B to $1,400B in just two years. You really are getting desperate now aren't you.

 

that wouldn't have been necessary if bush hadn't wrecked the economy

 

Quote where he said health care cost overall would be lower.

In fact, however, health care costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than they were in previous years and decades.

Straw man.

Bush wasn't a Democrat, much as you like to pretend he was. You really are getting desperate now aren't you.

 

Your denying the "bend the cost curve down" thingy now?

Actually they had been decreasing for years and the plateaued after Obamacare was instituted and now we see that increase in spending being a driving force in the GDP number increase.

You brought it up not me, now you dodge. How typical.

Try again. Funny how growth increased under it [austerity] along with a lowering of the deficit. So you oppose increased growth and lower deficits. Seems to me you were harping on the lower deficits and now complain about what helped create them. Care to square that circle?

How astute of you, but then the Democrats were Democrats and in two years they raised spending from $161B to $1,400B, and would have been higher if Bush had not run interference in 2008 and forced them to tone down their increases, so you worries about spending increases seem misplaced don't they.

 

Not really. Quote where he said health care cost overall would be lower.

Prove it.

"So you oppose increased growth and lower deficits." Rank straw man. How typical.

Growth didn't increase with austerity. As you and other conservatives have pointed out many times, growth in this recovery has been anemic compared to earlier recoveries, especially before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution gutted the middle class.

Bush wasn't a Democrat. Obama inherited 95% of the spending in FY 2009, most of which was driven by the Great Recession Bush and the Republicans left.

 

"Bending the cost curve" means reducing the rate of growth of health care spending--which is what we've seen ("Health care spending grows at lowest-ever rate").

In the long run the goal is to get health care spending growth at or below the rate at which the rest of the economy is growing. That way the health sector stops gobbling up the rest of the economy. The economic data out today shows that this, too, is happening, even as the number of insured Americans has swelled ("Healthcare spending growth continues to lag overall economy").

This is exactly what any kind of health care reform has to achieve.

 

I do not believe we will know the actual truth until we have Republicans controlling the Legislative and Executive branches. Does it feel to you like 5% growth? No. It does not. This is lying. It is propaganda.

 

The old "giant government conspiracy" thing again, eh?

It feels like 5% growth to me.

But then, I don't base my economic or political analysis on "feelings".

 

I can admit that I am occasionally wrong. I once thought you made sense....I admit my error.

 

the republican tax cuts for the rich definitely did not do the economy any favors

lets try something new, raise the taxes on the rich and give tax cuts to the working class for the next 10 years

.

 

In other words, it is clear to anyone who is not an Obama sycophant, that there is no 5% growth in the economy. If there were 5% growth there would be massive jubilation. There would be about a half million new well-paying jobs opening up every month.

Fraud. Lies. Obama. Democrats. Peas in a pod.

- - - Updated - - -

What does that mean to you? Can you make taxes any lower on those who do not pay? Do you know what the foundation of Marxism is?

 

In other words, you believe in a giant government conspiracy involving thousands of professional government workers who fake the data, based on your "feelings" and your vague, baseless unsupported beliefs that if there was 5% growth we'd have half a million new well paying jobs every month, which of course is complete nonsense.

So tell us, why did Obama and the giant conspiracy fake the UR rate up in the days and months before the 2010 and 2012 elections? Why did Obama and the giant conspiracy fake a lower GDP growth rate before the 2014 elections?

It never ceases to amaze me the degree of self deception some will go to simply to ignore facts that counter their pre-ordained political beliefs.