4th quarter 2013 GDP slashed in new revision to 2.4% "Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis." http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/GDP/GDPnewsrelease.htm And estimates are that 1st Quarter 2014 will not be much better. New jobless claims still hanging around the 350,000 mark. And what is Obama proposing to do? Nothing.
How's that Republican Tea Party Austerity working for ya? Just according to plan, right? The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from PCE, exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. The deceleration in real GDP growth in the fourth quarter reflected a deceleration in private inventory investment, a larger decrease in federal government spending, and downturns in residential fixed investment and in state and local government spending that were partly offset by accelerations in exports, in PCE, and in nonresidential fixed investment and a deceleration in imports. http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/GDP/GDPnewsrelease.htm
No it's how Obama's failed economic policies are working for ya. When you are relying of government spending to boost GDP especially 5 years after a recession has ended you are in BAD shape. Exactly how much less spending is the government doing now compared to 2007 when we had strong GDP? And if THAT is the reason how bad will it get when Obama makes his austerity cuts to the defense spending?
This is relying of government spending to boost GDP: (fiscal years) Reagan Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%. Total Government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000 This is relying of government spending to boost GDP: Bush Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7% Total Government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000 This is NOT relying of government spending to boost GDP: Obama Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89% Total Government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000 That is Republican Tea Party austerity. See the difference? Mod Edit ~ In consideration of fellow members, it would be good to provide a source for the statistics you've posted.
When consumers and businesses aren't spending sufficient to drive the economy, who else is left to do so besides the government? It's not really optional on the part of government to prop up the economy when the economy cannot do so for itself. The only other option is collapse. What I see as a failed policy from the administration is pumping banks with liquidity while they sit on excess reserves. We need a form of true intervention, whether it's stimulus via infrastructure investment or some type of household debt forgiveness that puts consumer funds back into their pockets so they can buy goods and services instead of servicing their overloaded debt which only enhances the banks.
ROFL! Blame the TEA Party... thanks for the laugh Liberals. You guys just never stop blaming everyone else except for the Democrats responsible.
Businesses would open up expansion TOMORROW if the authoritarian left wing boot was taken off their necks. Small business cannot get loans. They are getting crushed by regulations and health insurance increases. They can no longer win bids on Federal Projects as all that goes to the Democratic Parties big money Cronies. We used to do all sorts of work for the D.O.E. at Hanford, Y12, and else where. They had a 5% Small Business Goal. I spoke to their Small Business Advocate at Hanford (paid federal position) last week... he is stunned that over the last 5 years the 5 has went down to less than .05% on the project. This is the same across the nation. The attack is on small businesses by design. They can't get bank loans and they can't get business as long as the Democrats have anything to say about it.
If the GOP can win the WH in 2016, expect the GOP to start spending like crazy. We have seen this before a few times.
Scapegoating nonsense. We've always had regulations and Obamacare exchanges didn't start until this year. Businesses aren't expanding for one reason only: There isn't enough demand in the economy for them to expand. If there was demand in the economy and production was not expanding because of health care or regulations or whatever else you want to scapegoat, prices would be soaring.
How's Obama's tax-hike based economic plan working for ya? Who's the economically illiterate "progressive" idiot who thought that leaving people with less money in their paychecks at the end of the week would magically leave people with more money to spend? "Austerity".
That may be true in the sector you're discussing, but it's not true of DoD. We measure contractors based on how well they utilize small business and how well they attain goals to do so. It's even used to measure their past performance when they compete for new government contracts. Small business initiatives are still a very large priority, at least within DoD. I don't disagree that regulations are hurting business. What I was saying is that if consumers do not spend to keep demand going in the economy, the only consumer left with the capability of doing so is the government. Until consumers have more money to spend, whether that's through pay increases or debt reduction or more people earning paychecks, that demand cannot come back. When demand picks up to levels where employment rises and production capability approaches maximum, then government must reduce spending so it doesn't impede the private sector's growth. In downturns, that's when governments should be caring for their issues by spending until consumers are capable again of carrying the economy through normalized demand for goods and services. I don't know what effects the ACA has had regarding health insurance costs other than the stories in the media. I'm a small business owner as well, but too small to be impacted yet. I think another 1-3 years will give a very clear picture of what happens to the workforce under the regulations. For now we've seen a lot of changes in large businesses in terms of limiting hours, limiting growth and cutting workforce labor, but some of that may be trying to head off the unknown to protect profits until they fully understand the impacts (through experiencing the cost pressures). I'd still like to see a stimulus directed at the consumer. We have all-time-high household debt that is choking lower and middle class Americans' ability to spend, which just hurts demand for goods and services for all businesses. We've had too many years of businesses taking excessive profits without giving back to workers through wage increases year over year, and that directly hurts those same businesses today who are suffering from the very losses they induced.
Obama only raised taxes in 2013. Your comment doesn't apply at all to 2009-2012. And they worked great. Revenues in 2013 grew at twice the rate they did in 2012, the biggest factor in reducing the deficit. Your Republican Tea Party austerity as sucked here as bad as it has in Europe. We should do it more like Reagan and Bush. Mod Edit ~ No source for posted statistics
It just goes to show that the Neo-Socialist in Chief and the progs around him are clueless when it comes to turning the private sector around. Listen to his supporters - they think the government is the engine that drives our economy. How's that trickle down government voodoo working after 5 years?
Trickle down Govt voodoo? Agree 100% it's been a fail for the middle class and the economy. It's been great for the 1% though.
We used to do a ton of business with Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc... but the Defense budgets have "dried up" when it comes to large projects like we work on. The Obama Administration and Democratic Party reign has been a series of attacks on small businesses. We sold out over a year ago to a big company, but I still deal with many of the same people and other small businesses on a regular basis. I get to hear their pain on a regular basis. We sold out at the right time seeing what Barack Obama and the Democrats were going to do. It has been sad to see all the jobs lost at this company as it gets absorbed. We used to employ many people with very high paying jobs. Those are gone now. It's the Obama Economy and it only gets worse from here unless you are a Big Crony Capitalist aligned with team Democrat.
Sequester/austerity, baby. Nonsense. Obama's stimulus had billions in tax cuts for small businesses. Cutting Govt spending has negative economic consequences, true. That is the point -- it doesn't make sense to do it when the economy is trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years. Write your Tea party Republican reps and tell them to stop blocking Obama's jobs bills. - - - Updated - - - Why do you think it is Bush's fault? It's the Republican Tea Party that has induced austerity.
That is just the way big money corporate lobbyists want it. It is the d's and r's fault. But most stick their heads in the sand and yell, money = free speech. Well this economy is the result of said free speech. And small businesses suffer because of it.
You can thank austerity measures for that. I've seen DoD budgets that had been previously approved for a defense program get slashed by tens of millions, all while telling the program managers they still had to meet objectives. So when those funds dried up, first to go was any contractor force deemed able to be lost without jeopardizing the program entirely, then into government workers, hardware, support infrastructure, logistics support and any other area able to be hit, including training. Literally tens of millions of dollars in every budget year were just all of a sudden gone and entire programs had to re-think how to get the same job done without all that money. It often came at the expense of buying fewer aircraft, ships or whatever, which directly impacts jobs. All of it impacts jobs. It's crazy stuff to witness and trust me, the government employees hate seeing the damage it does to the defense industry because those are neighbors, friends, etc. who lose jobs and their losses directly harm local, state and federal budgets. Ironic that the government chokes federal departments, then works to stimulate the economy. So they took money from departments like DoD, education, agriculture, etc., to cut spending, then used QE to stimulate the economy. QE didn't create jobs, but cutting from those departments did destroy jobs. Makes no sense at all, and austerity with stimulus is like a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same room just fighting it out.
We're talking about this not your phony use of those numbers I've already refuted. YOU are the one claiming that it is government spending that has kept the GDP up which only shows how much Obama's policies have REALLY failed.
why are you still spewing that debunked crap and again with no source with a workable link do I again have to remind you about forum rule #10 10. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPINION AND FACT Anyone is free to express any opinion they wish, as long as it's within the guidelines, or assert any fact. However, for the purpose of civil and productive discussion, it's sometimes important to differentiate between the two. If a poster continually asserts something as a specific historical fact, they must be prepared to substantiate it as fact if challenged to do so by another poster, through a link that is credible in the judgment of moderators or administrators. If a moderator calls upon you to verify an assertion and you are unable to do so, you must be willing to acknowledge that it is an opinion rather than a fact, or that - even though you believe it to be true - you can not substantiate it. If you continue to assert as absolute fact something that you cannot validate, it may be considered thread derailment. The fact that someone is asking another poster for a cite does not necessarily mean that a moderator will agree that one is necessary, and asking for frivolous cites may also be regarded as thread derailment. Im going to ask you once more for a source with a workable link or I will again take it to the next step
Government spending has never kicked the economy into a recovery as we see now. It's government getting out of the way and NOT engaging in such policies that allows the economy to recovery.
That's true when an economy is strong. When an economy is weak to the point its people cannot find work and millions are unemployed, leaving demand for goods and services far below previous normal levels, only government can intervene. Where do you think the economy would be today if government had cut spending because revenues from taxation dropped, cut taxes further to "trickle down", then just moved aside and let the economy do as the markets drove it to do? We'd have a collapsed economy on our hands.
That wouldn't be so bad, but they're so desperate their going back to the Reagan years! News flash Obamalemmings: Barack Hussein Obama has been in charge of things for five, long, lean and hungry years. He, more than any other president in history has taken credit for the smallest of successes, which are admittedly few, while blaming EVERY problem on someone else. "I guess, ha, ha, shovel ready wasn't a shovel ready as we would have liked, har, har, har," is a pretty good example of how seriously he takes the economy. There simply is no defense for the fact that Canada, barely out of third world status, dependent on resources and agriculture is kicking the crap out of the US and has been since "The One" handed over $ trillion to an army of coke fueled greedy bankers. But then, Canada is governed by a Conservative government and we all know they are economic idiots with tea bags in their underwear.
