Economic growth in US down to 1.5%

The terminology used in the thread title is not correct. Economic growth, whether future or past equates to potential output, which is different from Real GDP growth, which equates to aggregate demand. The former is a long-run metric; the latter is a short-run metric. One is completely different from the other, and therefore necessitates revision, despite the fact that I agree with the OP's sentiments, yet disagree with his reasoning.

 

You mean BESIDES the ones who got $ BILLIONS of "stimulus" tax dollars,and absconded with the money, as part of Obama's "Green Investment", etc. ?

You know, where he GIVES THEM OUR "GREEN" ,and then THEY GIVE HIM THEIR "GREEN" ( which USED TO BE OUR "GREEN"....like Solyndra...$627 million..WHERE DID THE MONEY GO? ( I mean besides the likely kickbacks to the Obamite Liespeak Re-election Campaign..)


Companies which wish to\ be SUCCESSFUL, create JOBS and PROFITS, OBVIOUSLY FAVOR ROMNEY, who KNOWS WTF he is TALKING ABOUT, unlike our Community Organizer....

 

that makes me think you'd like to see the whole thing crash

you have no clue what you're talking about

did you come up with those stupid questions yourself?

looman is an ignorant, under-educated moron

 

What "whole thing" are you talking about and what makes you think I want it to "crash"? Does it strike you as odd to think of private businesspersons as not being servants to the arbitary whims of big government loons like Obama and Bernkanke?

 

You sure put him in his place didn't you?

I mean all we have to do is forget who is president and has been president for 3 1/2 years and just blame everything on Bush and the Republicans.

That way Obama can continue to play golf and Michelle Antoinette can continue taking the family on all those cool free vacations.

But meanwhile the country suffers because Obama has no interest in fixing economy.

 

Reading only your responses to these various posts, it is clear that you support Obamanomics. While a Conservative could respond that Obama has, for 3 1/2 years, shown himself to be "an ignorant, under-educated moron" in matters involving the economy (at least), could you please enlighten us with what you find so helpful, stimulating, useful, and enabling about Obama's economic policies toward small businesses in the United States?

Perhaps I could use your response to allay the fears I hear small business people express all the time that, in their opinions, Obama is out to tax them to death while using fraud and deceit to impose Obamacare and its penalty (or is it a tax?) to further burden and destabilize the entire workforce. I have not heard any of these seasoned, experienced business people say that they are wistful and uneasy about missing out on the Obamanomic "recovery" by running their enterprises with too few people.

What we did when we elected Comrade Obama to the presidency was the economic equivalent of locking ourselves in a room with a mentally-defective child holding a loaded gun. In November we had better take the gun away from him. Time is NOT on our side because the only "policy" we have seen in Obamanomics is to give Fed. Chairman Ben "bailout" Bernanke a green light to "print" more and more trillions of worthless dollars to pile into the banking cartels and pump the stock market. I am not hopeful that we can continue to play "kick the can" while King Hussein plays golf.

Now, please, dujac, enlighten us and tell us how wonderful Obamanomics really is, and tell us why anyone not in the "green energy" business would want to endure another four years of it....

 

No it doesn't, "economic growth" can mean past, present or future often measured by GDP whether past present or projected.

 

More so than you it seems....lack of rebutal noted.

 

The only unemployment that America needs is Democrat politician unemployment.


_

 

the country and its economy

are you really that clueless?

no, you're not even close

wrong, i reject idiots that want to sabotage the economy over politics

 

While everyone wishes the economy was recovering faster, and it is fashionable amongst partisan conservatives to use it to bash Obama, the truth is, slow recoveries did not start with Obama. For example, unemployment is 0.4 percentage points higher now than when Obama took office. We'd like to see it better, but by way of comparison, unemployment was 1.4 percentage points worse at this comparable time of the Bush administration from what he inherited.

The fact is, ever since "trickle down" policies were put into place, recoveries have been shallower and slower. Compare the the recoveries since "trickle down" (1990, 2001, and the current one) with earlier recoveries before the Regean revolution "trickle down" policies took effect. Notice a obvious trend?



This chart is older, but the differences are dramatic:



That begs the question, why have *all* our recoveries since the "Reagan revolution" been slower and shallower?

I think the answer lies in spending. Spending creates demand, demand creates production, production creates economic growth and jobs. Limit spending, and you limit demand, limit production, and you get slow growth.

The great engine of spending is the middle class. However, over the past thirty years, starting with the "trickle down" policies of the Reagan revolution, we have essentially diverted almost all the growth in income and wealth in this country to the top 10%, and most of it to the top 1%.



The top 1% do not proportionately spend the same. Instead, they hoard it in banks and offshore accounts, where trillions of dollars have accumulated. Trillions sitting in offshore accounts don't create demand in our economy.

Because we have diverted the growth of income from the spenders (middle class) to the non-spenders (1%), the middle class does not have that income and wealth to drive a strong recovery because "trickle down" policies. This is not just noticeable in the current recovery, we have seen it in the last three recoveries as the charts above indicate.

Low spending, low demand, low production, low growth.

If we want to get back to the periods of stronger growth we saw in earlier decades, we need to reverse the Reagan "trickle down" policies, and adopt policies that stop diverting income to people who don't spend it, and get it to people who do.

While Obama has not done that to the extent I like (in part because the obstructionist Tea Party Republicans whose leaders say their top priority is not jobs but getting Obama out of office); he is at least trying to move in that direction. He has cut taxes for the middle class and wants to raise them on the richest, which would be one step in the right direction.

Romney would cut taxes for the 1% even more, diverting even more trillions into offshore accounts. That will make him and the rest of the 1% richer. That might create fodder for yet another tax incentivized asset bubble, but it isn't going to boost the middle class and thus spending and ultimately the economy.

 

Past you a long time ago, still note can't rebut what I posted.
[/QUOTE]

 

what you posted fell flat long ago

 

While you cheer it's stagnation and claim it an Obama success.

It is quite appropriate to point out his failures.

But he is President now and it is his policies and his proposals that are important now. And all you can do is try to make excuses for his failure.

Already refuted and demonstrated the the largest increases in the incomes of the middle and lower classes came after the very policies you oppose.

And another fallacious statement, it will bring money back into the US not drive it out.

 

Nope still up there and you inablility to address it noted. Here try again.

You can thank Obama for his failed policies and threats to people and companies who want to expand the economy for the economy we have.

"The most recent comparable recession occurred in 1981-1982. Yet as the nearby chart shows, the Reagan expansion exploded with a 9.3% quarter and kept up a robust pace for years. By the 12th quarter of expansion, growth popped up to 6.4.%. At this stage of the Reagan expansion, overall GDP was 18.5% higher versus 6.7% for the Obama recovery, according to Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Even comparing this recovery with the average since the end of World War II, the Obama growth rate is well below the norm of 15.2%. The U.S. is running about $1.5 trillion of economic output behind where it should be.
This may sound like an abstraction, but it is the difference between a robust job market and lost opportunity for millions of Americans. It is the difference between a small federal budget deficit and more than $1 trillion for four straight years. It is the difference between a rising or falling poverty rate.....



"By the way, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis chose this quarter to revise the post-2008 GDP numbers based on more detailed data, and it shows that the recovery was even weaker in 2010 than previously estimated. The growth rate for the first two quarters of 2010 were revised sharply downward, and for the year to 2.4% from 3%. The revisions also show the trough in 2009 was not as deep as originally thought. This further discredits the value of the government's 2009-2010 stimulus spending bonanza. Business investment and inventory buildup were both revised downward for 2010, which suggests that the stimulus did very little to boost business confidence. "
And what is his ONLY plan to get the economy going, higher taxes on businesses and the people who own them. What a plan, goes hand in hand with his plan to bring down the unemployment rate, just get everyone to stop looking and go on government subsidence and we don't have to count them any more........."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

It is time to fire this inept administration.

 

what a joke

 

As I said, inability to refute noted, in fact inability to even discuss noted.

 

Thank you, Iriemon, for your thought-provoking and fact-filled responses, which typify and distinguish you among liberal thinkers. You know that I agree with you on several key points that you've made -- including the obvious necessity to fix the US Tax Code that encourages so much wealth to escape taxation through loopholes and shelters. And, you know my rants about U. S. corporations that hoard off-shore profits in foreign currencies and off-shore bank accounts. These should be forced to repatriate these funds in a measured time-oriented progression, or face further taxation. But, in addition to the other aspects of an inadequate "progressive" economic policy, Obama has left these key areas completely untouched, as we know. But, in fairness, we know that Obama has no shortage of internationalist corporate heads to please, in addition to the characteristic masses of "pore people" he supports with his immense liberal Democrat Welfare State....

But about this "tax increase on the richest"... why doesn't Obama propose the smart thing and exempt small businesses from the punitive taxation he wants to pile on invidivuals who make >$250k/annum. As I've indicated above, Obama can posture and grandstand to the "pore people" about raising taxes on the "rich", but until the tax code is changed to eliminate the loopholes and shelters, Comrade Obama will have achieved absolutely NOTHING, and everyone who knows anything about taxes, the truly wealthy and rich, and their tax attorneys, knows this. My rant is so often repeated, and yet no one ever does anything about it: the poor pay little or no taxes, and the rich pay little or no taxes. Pathetic! Obama could make real populist headway in accusing Republicans of allowing this kind of thing in 2008, but no longer! Now he's as big a part of the ongoing problem as the most venal, deceitful RINO. The Middle-Class is forced to pay the lion's share for EVERYTHING.

And I'll be honest enough to admit that I don't believe Mitt Romney could change any of this, either, in his first 3 1/2 years! BUT, Romney can encourage small businesspeople, instead of giving them a bootheel in the face, dismantle Obamacare (which no one but the parasites wanted anyway), and to do everything he can to force Bernanke to stop the insane, debt-spiralling excesses of "quantitative easings", "twists", "bond-buying", and other Keynesian money juggling. At best, Romney won't be rid of Bernanke until January 31, 2014, because Comrade Obama, in his empty-minded naivete, reappointed Bernanke to his position in the Fed, as we know. As a consequence, Romney won't be able to get much done about Bernanke until then, but at least Mitt can work to stop the bleeding! Obama sits in a delusional fog, and through his negligence and ignorance, actually encourages what Bernanke is doing!

But, ultimately, we do agree -- low spending, low demand, low production, low growth. And putting millions and millions more people on welfare of one kind or another while taxing small businesspeople heavily, and plunging the country even deeper into the debt chasm Obama has sunk us into will not help or cure anything, Iriemon. Romney is not IDEAL, but at least he has the qualifications, the understanding, the experience, and the proven successes to do better than the hapless, tread-water failure that Obama has clearly turned into....

Again, thank you for your most interesting, intelligent response. Others of a liberal persuasion could learn a GREAT deal from you....

 

your drivel isn't worth reading, it falls flat on its own

 

Thank you, though I submit it also distinguishes from the emotional rants and disingenuous claims that typifies the vast bulk of conservative thinkers as well.

You have this misconception that the rich are taxed "heavily" and that the tax increase Obama proposes is "punitive."

In fact, the rich pay lower taxes proportionate to their incomes than they have since before the GD. The "punitive" taxes are the same ones during the Clinton administration, when businesses thrived and flourished.

I'm not so sure about Romney's record, but we can look at his policy positions. And he would cut taxes on the 1% even more. Putting aside how less revenues will drive the deficit up, not improve it, how will giving the 1% more trillions to horde in offshore accounts generate stronger spending?

I agree Obama has not moved as aggressively as I would want to see in this regard. But let's also be realistic about the situation. He inherited an economy that was tanking straight for another depression, and since 2010, has had an obstructionist Tea Party Republican controlled House, whose leaders make no secrete that their top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out, which has effectively stymied his every effort.

 

You pull this kind of non-response all the time. You are known for it. Why don't you try talking specifics, facts, or at least make rational rebuttals instead of your stupid retaliations. You are the one spewing drivel and you are probably too deluded to know it. You are so worthless in a debate that you are going on the ignore list.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

 

I support the right of private business owners to protest the anti-business policies and rhetoric of authoritarian statists like Obama and Bernanke. That is good for our country and its "economy". It's what this country was founded on...

 

Your samples are inadequate. Neither of them include recessions and depressions from the early 1900's. How are we supposed to compare and contrast American recessions/depressions when you exclude dozens of relevant observational units? And as long as we're looking for correlations in the data, why don't you comment on this correlation?

 

we're far removed from king george now