Federal Reserves GDP flat lines with 0% growth forecast

GDP is growing, unemployment is down, tax revenues are up, manufacturing continues to grow, trucking is in short supply, the participation rate is improving when adjusted for boomers retiring, things are moving in the right direction.

 

you need to learn something about economics...low national debt is a bad thing.

 

Not even the average fanatical Obama supporter will claim that the nation being nearly nineteen trillion dollars in national debt is a good thing. In fact they fall all over themselves pointing out that it reached eleven trillion under Bush. Now is that the blame gaming of a group that thinks that over-the-top national debt is a positive thing? Nope!

 

national debt is certainly good...suggest you read up on it.

 

That's not what Barry Obama said when the debt was all on Bush's shoulders.

 

You contradict yourself in your own posts... Read both bolded parts in the quote above....

 

I guess you don't understand how businesses work.

Businesses (smart long lasting businesses) plan years ahead.

ObamaCare was signed into law in 2010. Business started to adjust for the impending regulations and taxes.

ObamaCare was unconstitutionally blessed by the SCOTUS in 2012. Business adjusted some more.

Businesses will continue to adjust to the new ObamaCare taxes and regulations as they get implemented.

The 90's boom was because of the DOT COM industry and had nothing to do with the high taxes of the 90's. The early 90's saw the dramatic growth of the internet and businesses took advantage of that new technology. This led to the DOT COM bubble which burst in the lake 90's. In Clinton's last year (2000) and Bush's first year (2001) before any of Bush's policies went into effect, we say weak GDP growth and unemployment started to rise which was compounded by the events of 9/11.

 

Let us thank Nixon and Eisenhower for the ACA, they set the ground work for it.

 

How so? And nice deflection from your failing POS POTUS.

- - - Updated - - -

MOD EDIT - Rule 2

- - - Updated - - -

Good for who?

 

Mitch McConnell says economic uptick coincides with expectation of GOP Senate takeover . lol

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mcconnell-says-economic-uptick-coincides-exp/

 

There is no contradiction. The economy would pick up if the GOP got on board with mad crazy spending. The government either borrowing or printing money would add to GDP and velocity. We shouldn't do it. but not for the reason the GOP doesn't want to spend. We need to manage contraction in the face of global competition. There is no rhyme or reason to what the GOP is doing other than to keep the black guy from looking good.

 

Indeed. But the government didn't allow it to run it's natural cycle and instead back-filled the decline in an attempt to lessen the pain. All that did was extend it and exacerbate the problem, leaving the recession to run right into another recession.

Mad crazy spending? That's exactly what this administration did. They mad crazy spent over $7.5 trillion above revenue.

Yosh Shmenge is right. All you have is blame Bush or blame the GOP.

 

He did have interesting little speeches where he railed against Bush for things that he now supports doing.

 

I suspect they were less concerned about lessening pain and more worried about a run on banks followed by the banks running on the fed and all the Mae's and Macs.

It was done with intergovernmental debt and dealings between the fed and freddie and fannie mostly. It was spending so much as it was accounting magic to absorb the losses without the economy collapsing.

I did not mention Bush at all that I recall. The GOP obsession with tax and public benefits cuts is not the responsible way to contract a mature economy so that it can better align itself with a changed global marketplace.

 

Oh aye! Obama is famous for now supporting what he once condemned. He was against it (fill-in-the-blank) before he was for it.

 

Actually it is. Let the people keep more money and they'll either spend it or invest it. Both stimulate the economy. The government doesn't create anything except bureaucracy, which stifles the economy.

 

Yea having a national debt bigger than your entire economy is great, just ask Greece.


MOD EDIT - Rule 2

 

Pfffft! The past is sooooooo passe where it concerns Barack Obama and his countless public statements. Just ask any fanatical Obama supporter. Possibly it even qualifies as Race Card playing racism to insist upon holding this particular politician and president to his past statements regarding -- well -- anything.

Anyway Obama deals with having been president while the national debt skyrocketed from a hideous 11 trillion dollars to a perfectly acceptable (by leftists) nearly nineteen trillion dollars by ignoring -- with the help of the chronically in-the-tank-for-Obama Mainstream Media -- the fact of its existence. Somehow that seems so very leftist in nature where actual reality is concerned . . .

 

You NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER hear about the $18+ Trillion national debt from the MSM.

But you always heard about the debt when W. was POTUS....funny how that works. Obama has spent more money and dug us deeper in debt than any other POTUS....and he doesnt even have close competition.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 just know that a low national debt for the US is a formula for a depression. Greece is not relevant MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

I would prefer to be the same as before then less then before, profitable is still profitable even if it's not more profitable then the year before

 

Ok, so you say we shouldn't have the government spend like crazy by printing or borrowing money; which is what the GOP (some of them anyway) want. You say they don't want to only because doing so would make the president look good... But if the president wants to spend like crazy and that would be bad... then how can stopping him irregardless of the reason be a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of republicans, I am a libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson last election and will vote 3rd party again in 2016. I think both parties economic policy is insane pandering just to stay in office and in the long run detrimental to economic growth and development. I don't care what motivation the established parties use to do or don't do something as long as I feel its the right thing to do.

In this case I believe spending and borrowing more to artificially inflate the economy will just cause greater pain in the future. The federal reserve has already supercharged the money supply, the only reason there hasn't been crazy inflation is the velocity of money is crazy low. If the velocity of said money picked up so would inflation, in a near recession like we are in now that would be horrible for the poor, especially the young just starting to work poor without any type of nest egg.

 

Let's take a small example: The GOP criticizes Obama for not closing Gitmo, but they have dome everything they can to block funding for it; and for transferring detainees to other countries. That is just pointless partisanship.

Just depends. Obama does his fair share if fat cat belly rubbing, but ideas like free community college is a good investment. Why any not wealthy person would oppose such an idea and support estate tax repeals is beyond me. We need to be looking at ways to make education over a lifetime accessible so that workers can adapt to a changing marketplace. If somebody needs to learn spanish and welding and computer networking to advance at work or find work, then they should not have to bear huge costs because their skill set is less relevant to the job market every decade.

 

I agree, with your example here, but the government spending one is not the same situation. Obama has routinely put budgets forward that spend far more than Republicans are willing to support, Hell he cant even get democrat support for them. Ohh and both sides play pointless partisanship games 90% of the time... hence why I vote 3rd party.

Yep, just a lot of different fat cats than the Republicans, except when it comes to Wallstreet, they both rub like crazy there.

First off its not free, what you want is subsidized community college, which is glorified high school.

Im not rich and I don't support "free" community college, I also don't support the estate tax... That stuff has already been taxed at different rates, why tax it again just because someone dies and passes it on to their family. Shouldn't one be able to work hard their life and give that effort to whomever they wish when they pass in order to help them? I despise directly taxing labor.

Educational access is better here than in the majority of the world, we don't have an access problem so much as a status quo in education that needs to change. I don't see the need for brick and mortar schools anymore with technology the way it is. I did my masters online in my own time; was the best learning experience I ever had; it put all the onus on me, making me more diligent and responsible... not that I needed too much help there. We need to stop forcing this one sized fits all education the public schools and majority of higher learning institutions force on people. Instead we should use education in lower levels to teach basic skills in math, science, reading and writing... After that we should tailor curriculum towards an individuals goals, skills and abilities. Why did I have to take fine arts courses in college when I was an engineer? Yeah that music appreciation class the only one I could fit in my schedule was totally worth all the money I had to spend

If someones skill set is less relevant its because their skills are limited, Labor like everything else suffers from supply and demand. We need to develop a society that encourages self improvement not one that supports improvement at the cost of others. Thats what all this "free" college and "free" training is, taking from some to give to others in hopes that they better themselves. Probably not the best way to use limited resources.. but hell since its not touchy feel goodery I must be wrong.