CBO revises 2014 GDP growth from 3.1% down to 1.5%

Thanks Obama!

Yeah, thanks for nothing.

It looks like Obama's higher taxes, increased regulations and burdensome and costly ObamaCare are taking a toll on our economy.

Caution: Slower Growth Ahead

 

You don't think you're rather overestimating the direct power that Obama has over the economy?

The economy changes, and you can't just automatically attribute all the bad things to Obama by default. MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

But the administration said... Oh wait, those with more than two brain cells have already accepted reality... Oh well, at least we elected our first affirmative action president, what could go wrong????

 

If his polices (higher taxes and increased regulations) are the reason, then yes you can "attribute all the bad things to Obama by default."

 

I'm less optimistic. Regulatory excess is almost never undone back to the ground state. What the EPA has effed up will prove to be 80% permanent.

And don't for a moment confuse 'Republican' with 'free market conservative'. These country club Boehner butt buddies are almost as dangerous as Dems.

 

No! He's a regulatory & tax disaster for business. Frankly, I'm surprised we're still doing as well as we are given this wrecking ball we have in WH and his regulatory worshiping administrators. And if the clown signs on to some UN climate deal, it'll really be a economic nightmare for us.
In case you haven't noticed, just because Obama claims to be an agent of change doesn't mean it's change for the better, brighter future of America.

 

Seems winter is sticking around for the whole year.............................

 

The U.S. economy grew at the solid pace of 3.5 percent for the third quarter, helped along by gains in business investment, exports and a big jump in military spending, the Commerce Department says.

The latest GDP number for the July-to-September period was better than economists had expected. It follows a 4.6 percent jump for the April-to-June quarter

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...strong-3-5-percent-growth-rate-in-3rd-quarter

Per the OP: Thanks Obama!

 

Q3 GDP was driven higher by government spending, more specifically the War on Terror.

And Consumer spending plummeted.

Q3 GDP Rises 3.5% Despite Sharp Slowdown In Consumption, Pushed Higher By Government Spending Spree

 

Higher Govt spending increased GDP, eh?

Maybe they're on to something ...


Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

Consumer spending increased 1.8%. How is that "plummeted" in your view?

 

It's hilarious when the numbers first come out and liberal morons are celebrating their mediocrity.

Then, invariably, the real numbers come out...and as usual they are crap and the libs are left with egg n their stupid fat faces.

 

Wow, imagine that. An increase in Govt spending increased the economy. Maybe our Republican friends should stop the austerity?

How do you figure a 1.8% increase in consumer spending is "plummeting"?

 

Just more horrible economic performance by Democrats / Leftists.

 

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets and housing markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The deficit was running at $1.2 trillion, soon projected to hit $1.9 trillion, the housing market was destroyed, and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the the private sector has added more jobs every month for 54 months in a row, stock markets are up about 150% from their recession lows to record highs, corporate profits have hit all time highs, we've gained back all the jobs lost in the recession, the housing market is recovering, the deficit has been cut in half, the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 5.9%, and over 10 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy, but get him out of office, and their austerity and uncertainty.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes-- or the ignorant -- would claim it's horrible performance.

 

Revised means he lied the first time

 

Since the numbers are always revised, all your claim means is that every president since GDP figures started being calculated almost a century ago are liars.

It's a giant conspiracy, doncha know.

 

All the conservative talking points itt. Too bad most of the poorest states in this country are Republican and probably contribute to government spending. lol.

 

Government spending is included in the equation of GDP. Which is one reason why GDP is not the best measure of economic growth. Government could spend 1 trillion more dollars digging and refilling holes in the ground, and GDP would reflect an increase of 1 trillion dollars.

 

Who is the "he" in the CBO in your view?

- - - Updated - - -

Only Govt direct spending is counted, not transfers (like SS payments). It's counted like all other spending is counting, even when its for something as superfluous as a megayacht.

 

I'm aware of that. A yacht is an example of something being produced. Digging and refiling holes is not, yet it would still be counted. A more realistic example is that an economy that spends trillions on a war, destroying wealth, will have a high GDP. In reality, the actual economic conditions of the country may be poor. We saw this with WWII. GDP skyrocketed, but people were starving.

 

What does the megayacht produce for society? Maybe in provides some utility for one really rich guy. Digging and filling holes creates jobs which give people who otherwise would have jobs money to spend, which creates demand for products and services. Though I certainly would suggest that improving infrastructure would be a better way to spend money.

I agree GDP measure the amount of production, and doesn't attempt to value the intrinsic worth of what is produced but I'm not sure how you would quantify the latter. Military spending is probably the worst, as in WWII. While we needed the tanks to win the war, it didn't do a whole lot for improving quality of life. OTOH, it did get people back to work. You say people were starving, but I'd have to see more people were starving in WII than the Great Depression. I don't believe that is the case at all and my guess is that a lot fewer people were starving. Unemployment was virtually nil and most people were either off fighting the war or working.

 

If all the money is society is spend digging holes and refilling them, who cares if it will create jobs if there is nothing to buy other than refilled holes in the ground? Building a yacht also creates jobs. And contrary to digging holes and refilling them, it represents real wealth that someone actually wants.

Yeah, less people starving during WWII, more people getting their heads blown off. Totally great, right? And yeah, full employment had nothing to do with the fact people were forced into working to support the war and drafted into military service. No, nothing to do with that at all. The problem is that you see employment as an ends. It is merely a means. What employment creates is what matters. If employment creates goods and services people want, it was worth it. If it creates holes in the ground, it was not, and constitutes a waste of human resources (time) that could have been used somewhere productive.

 

Excellent point. So let's not spend all our money digging holes and refilling them. Not like I suggested doing such a thing.

If all the money in society is spent building a few megayachts that only benefits a tiny fraction of the people, who cares if it will create jobs if there is nothing to buy other than a few megayachts that only a tiny fraction can afford?

So that doesn't sound like a good idea either.

Why on earth would you think that? Jeez.

Who was "forced into working" to support the war?

Really, your positions are getting more bizarre by the post. It's usually a sign that you are trying to defend a bad position.

Employment with good wages creates income for people who otherwise wouldn't have it, whose spending creates demand and thus production of goods and service people want, and more jobs and higher wages.

Which IMO is not a waste of human resources.

What *is* a waste of human resources is millions of people who want a job sitting idle because jobs are not available. When we are in that situation, then, even government hiring is better than people sitting idle. Preferably for jobs that are more productive than simply digging and filling holes, but even that would be an improvement.

When the private industry picks up, the government should back off employment of non-necessary employment for reasons you stated.

Unfortunately, we've about done the opposite in the last 15 years. Govt employment was expanded when the economy was growing in the 00s, and hundreds of thousands of jobs were eliminated when we had millions sitting idle.

 

Looks like you missed the point of the example. You also had to do some backpeddling, which I find humorous. At first you defended all resources being spent digging holes and refilling them because it created jobs. Then, when I pointed out there would be nothing to buy, you changed your mind about digging holes being a good idea.

Digging and refilling holes was just an extreme example to prove the point which seems to have flown over your head. Government spends money in wasteful ways, by taking money from productive uses and putting it towards pet projects and the bloated salaries of bureaucrats.

Just using sarcasm to highlight the idiocy of your argument. Which I succeeded in doing, since you no longer have a response.

Open a history book. Heard of the draft? That's what I'm talking about. In addition, production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners, and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. Factories were converted to produce war machines instead.

This is why we go back to the example. If all that matters is employment, why not employ everyone digging and refilling holes? Oh yeah, that's right. Because what matters is that real wealth is produced. If no wealth is produced, money from employment will be useless.

Digging and refilling holes constitutes a waste of resources, not an improvement. Better to just give people money directly and keep them available for actual productive work.

The government hiring of the unemployed is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. What needs to be fixed is what causes the unemployment, which is merely a symptom of the disease.