GDP Goes Negative In Fourth Quarter

So what? So did Bush. They had to because the Republican Recession was sending us straight to a depression.

 

It's more than four years later. The Stimulus has played out and is no longer affecting GDP or employment. The National Debt is about six trillion dollars greater than it was four years ago, and is projected to be another six trillion dollars greater four years hence.

The economy is sputtering. Let's hope the fourth quarter contraction is not repeated this quarter. If it is the US is in recession again. And Sequestration starts next month. That means layoffs in the defense industry. Then, the Debt Ceiling will come up again as an issue in May.

- - - Updated - - -

It's more than four years later. The Stimulus has played out and is no longer affecting GDP or employment. The National Debt is about six trillion dollars greater than it was four years ago, and is projected to be another six trillion dollars greater four years hence.

The economy is sputtering. Let's hope the fourth quarter contraction is not repeated this quarter. If it is the US is in recession again. And Sequestration starts next month. That means layoffs in the defense industry. Then, the Debt Ceiling will come up again as an issue in May.

 

I suppose I have a different standard for what a bad thing is.

The Fed is not overspending. The Fed has not massively increased the scope and reach of government. Obama and his democratic toadies have done that damage. They were helped by statist Republicans.

We are doomed to collapse.

 

The Fed itself is an increase in the reach of government.

 

ROFLMAO............BUSH..............BUSH............BUSH..............BUSH............BUSH..............BUSH............BUSH..............BUSH............BUSH..............BUSH

So them me what Omnibus Budget Resolution did Bush vote for before he became President?

Sorry attempt to mitigate the fact that Obama was up to his eyeballs in the budgets and deficits of 2008 and 2009 but glad you now admit it.

 

Don't you see the fallacy in your response? I said that money trickles in every direction and when wealthy people spend their millions it trickles all over the place! But I also said that the trickle down economics of the wealthy cannot be the only solution. It is only part of the solution. And if you believe wealthy people don't spend, then try erasing everything purchased over the past 20-30 years by Gates and his economic peers, count how many jobs will be lost, and how the economies will be effected. I prefer to maximize the amount of cash that remains in the hands of people and business and minimize the amount of cash that goes to government. Whether this cash is in the hands of the wealthy, or all others, makes no difference to me...maximize their cash and minimize government's cash. What everyone fails to establish is a cap on government spending; how much should government spend per capita? On average, how much taxation can we 'reasonably' extract from taxpayers? If this number is $3 trillion, then the government budget is $3 trillion...period! If you can extract $5 trillion, and not negatively effect the private economy, then go for it. It IS NOT sustainable to believe that 15% of the taxpayers can continue to pay 85% of the taxation, and it becomes even more absurd when you wish to change this to 90-95%...

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely correct...Obama did not inherit anything that Obama did not help create...

 

I do not disagree that the FED is propping up the beginnings of this tyranny.

 

It is pretty simple. Deficits are driven by two factors.

1. Government spending
2. Tax Receipts.

Guess what happens to tax receipts when we enter into a severe recession?

It wasn't spending that was driving the deficit, but the economic downturn.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGRECPT?cid=107


It is really not that hard to understand.

 

No, I always believed in SS, teacher, Medicare, roads, policeman, scientist, clean water, clean air before I delved into my libertarian stage.

I would appreciate if you stopped holding this against me. My libertarian phase was just that....a phase.

I live and learn. While I was attracted to libertarian party on foreign policy and civil liberty, I ultimately disagree with them on economic issues.

Anyways, you want to castrate me since I left your theology. Get it over with. Castrate me and stop holding it against me.

 

Lol, it's always funny when conservatives are so intellectually dishonest that they refuse to mention what was happening to the economy as Obama got in to office. If you eliminate the first 4-6 months of his term as the economy was in a freefall, he has done very well to stabilize the economy. But because the crazy obstructionist Republican's, he hasn't been able to do what is necessary to grow the economy significantly and to lower the unemployment rate back to full employment. The Republican's have forced Obama to be the biggest fiscal conservative we have seen in almost 6 decades. He's had to cut over 1 million public sector jobs and has spent relatively less than both Bush and Reagan.

Unfortunately Repubs aren't taking credit for the fact that they have tried to block every policy Obama wanted. And Repubs have to do this because they know if Obama and the Dems got what they want, this economy would be booming and they would look like idiots. So instead they purposely hold the country hostage so they can win the next election. But since that didn't work, now they are finally playing a little bit nicer.

Spend money like Reagan and Bush did and you will see significant growth. Reagan the Keynesian would agree with this message!

 

^^Gets it.

Republicans should be championing that their austerians measures passed, yet they blame Obama.

Then again, we have to deal with (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who's sole goal is to wreck to the economy. These people are dangerous and should not be taken lightly.

After all, as you pointed out.

These people are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hypocrites who claim that they are conservative while blaming conservative policy for the lack of growth.

1984 stands out.

 

And I'm not making this up like conservatives make up their data. Obama has been forced to cut public sector employment and forced to not increase Government spending. You conservatives should be proud of this economy! This is exactly what you guys want.

 

Cons don't even make up data anymore, they completely rationalize it away.

It is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amazing.

 

I like the "cons" label. Because that's exactly what they are.

 

LOL... pretty funny, given you just tried a con saying people are forced to go to public school in Tennessee. This one literally made me laugh out loud. Thanks!

C'mon, admit the truth. No one is forced to go to public school anywhere. There's always a choice. Why is that so hard to admit?

 

Correct it is not hard to understand
Revenues
2007 2,567,985
2009 2,104,989
- 462,996

Spending
2007 2,728,686
2009 3,517,677
+788,991

Guess what happens when the wrong policies are instituted, deeper recessions, slower recoveries, bad fiscal management.

 

It is pitiful when liberals try to ignore what Obama was doing before he moved to the White House, what he supported what he voted for what he was part and parcel too.

Do you really believe he just rode into town on January of 2009?

Now add back in the three years before that and his votes and what he supported or didn't support.

Stabilize? You are joking. The worst recovery we have ever had. Deficits out the roof.

Oh spare us the tired specious cliche's. He got what he wanted in his HUGE stimulus and has been spending at those levels ever since.

One of the more dishonest statements.

And failed and we see what happened. Too bad they didn't succeed.

No one has spent money like this President. And let's not forget Reagan requested less spending every year in office than the Democrat congress authorized and even at that the deficits fell dramatically during the strong recovery Reagan's policies finally got us into. And with Bush43, his correct actions, other than the failed tax return advance, kept the recession from going deeper and produced a one time deficit high of $400B, a third of Obama and the Democrats and then it fell to a measly $161B before Obama and the Democrat took over.

Keynes would have never support Obama and his spending and deficits.

- - - Updated - - -

And when you can't win on the merits of your arguments...................

 

The economy wasn't in freefall the first 4-6 months. The contraction in GDP has already started to reduce by the end of the first quarter of 2009 and we hit recovery that summer, long before any Obama policies could have taken effect.

 

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion means that government spending should be 100% of GDP. We'd see GDP rise to levels like never before, employment would be 100%, and we can just keep devaluing our currency to make it possible.

When will you admit that you're a socialist?

 

Further to this, the recession was almost 2/3's over when he took office. The jobs loss rate bottomed out the month he took office. It was primed to go into a full strong recovery. His policies failed to kick that along and in fact prevented it making matters worse over the long term. And he proposes nothing except the same failed policies. All he has is to make you jealous and envious of the successful people and engage in the " tax the rich to make it fair" propaganda. Note how they are using the gun control issue to divert from jobs and the economy? What happened to him waking up everyday and jobs being his top priority?

 

Gee...what happened between 2007 and 2009...?

- - - Updated - - -

Gee...what happened between 2007 and 2009...?

 

That's not the logical conclusion at all, lol. Who cares if the debt is 100% of GDP. That's simply a comparison. Why can't it be 1000% of GDP? You're an ideologue, you have no connection to reality whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

You just made all this up, lol. How do you know the recession was almost "2/3's" over when he took office? You guys make up the funniest stuff, great comedy!

 

I think conservatives and leftists can agree that obama has no plan to reduce unemployment from where it is now...either as measured by U-3 or U-6. Stagnation is the order of the day.

 

Not really, 4-5 months after Obama took Presidency right when his stimulus checks started going out the economy was still losing over 400,000 jobs a month. After that is history of course as the economy started producing positive private sector job growth after that. But you can make up whatever reality you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably one of the dumber things I've heard today, and that is saying a lot.

 

Why do you say that?