economy growing

[netrox]

Obama did a terrible job of making the economy grow!

"The stock advance picked up speed Friday morning after a report showed that the U.S. economy grew at a 5.7% annual rate last quarter, the fastest pace in six years."

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jan. 29, 2010

 

[kokonut]

Calm down. It was mostly the inventory that did it with 3.5% making up most of it. Inventory doesn't necessarily equate with growth.

Growth was boosted a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation, a factor that could mask the strength of the economic recovery from the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

But even stripping out inventories, the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent, accelerating from the 1.5 percent increase in the third quarter, reflecting relatively strong performance from other segments of the economy.

Business inventories fell only $33.5 billion in fourth quarter after dropping $139.2 billion in the July-September period. The change in inventories alone added 3.39 percentage points to GDP in the last quarter. This was the biggest percentage contribution since the fourth quarter of 1987.

Economy Grows 5.7 Percent; Chicago PMI Jumps - CNBC

Now, remember how you breathlessly painted the GDP growth in the last quarter on AD at 3.5%?
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows.html

And how the GDP numbers were revised two times downward to a final resting place at 2.2%, which is rather anemic and mostly the government doing rather than the private businesses.

http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows-2.html#post1465901
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows-2.html#post1491485

GDP is based on three things.

Consumer spending
Investment of businesses
Government spending - way, way up.

Wait another 4 to 6 weeks for the GDP number to get corrected and finalized. This happens all the time.

 

[Foxrac]

Obama did a terrible job of making the economy grow!

"The stock advance picked up speed Friday morning after a report showed that the U.S. economy grew at a 5.7% annual rate last quarter, the fastest pace in six years."

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jan. 29, 2010

Oh interesting, thanks for link.

It's good news, anyway.

 

[kokonut]

The number isn't a finalized one. They always revise it downward just as they did in the last quarter for June - August 2009. This one is for Sept - Dec 2009.

 

[Foxrac]

Calm down. It was mostly the inventory that did it with 3.5% making up most of it. Inventory doesn't necessarily equate with growth.


Economy Grows 5.7 Percent; Chicago PMI Jumps - CNBC

Now, remember how you breathlessly painted the GDP growth in the last quarter on AD at 3.5%?
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows.html

And how the GDP numbers were revised two times downward to a final resting place at 2.2%, which is rather anemic and mostly the government doing rather than the private businesses.

http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows-2.html#post1465901
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/71292-economy-grows-2.html#post1491485

GDP is based on three things.

Consumer spending
Investment of businesses
Government spending - way, way up.

Wait another 4 to 6 weeks for the GDP number to get corrected and finalized. This happens all the time.

Government spending has been traditional for part of Democratic Party, they introduced Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Public Housing Projects, Section 8 Housing and other social programs, they are favor in social to help poor Americans so you cannot expect that democrats are disagree with issue, except for conservative democrat.

Obama is democrat, obviously and we know about him has high government spending and he was elected by Americans in November 08, that's democrat typical.

Public housing project is very bad idea, we had done with that by high poverty and high crime, it made poverty so more infested in city but prior to develop of public housing project during WWII, poverty was spreading in anywhere.

 

[kokonut]

Government spending has been traditional for part of Democratic Party, they introduced Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Public Housing Projects, Section 8 Housing and other social programs, they are favor in social to help poor Americans so you cannot expect that democrats are disagree with issue, except for conservative democrat.

Obama is democrat, obviously and we know about him has high government spending and he was elected by Americans in November 08, that's democrat typical.

Public housing project is very bad idea, we had done with that by high poverty and high crime, it made poverty so more infested in city but prior to develop of public housing project during WWII, poverty was spreading in anywhere.

Then you *should* understand that govt spending does not equate with growth but rather when consumer confidence is high do they increase their spending by buying more things and see investment in businesses increase. Two biggest items, consumer spending and business investment are the real bell weather of an improving economy, not increase in govt spending which is our tax dollars being spent (and beyond the allocated budgeted amount by over a trillion dollars, too).

 

[netrox]

remember, bush sr left office, we were in debt. when clinton left the office, we were left with a surplus. when bush left, we're left in a deep hole than ever that it is NOT possible for Obama to leave office with a surplus, even if two terms.

thanks bush!

 

[Foxrac]

Then you *should* understand that govt spending does not equate with growth but rather when consumer confidence is high do they increase their spending by buying more things and see investment in businesses increase. Two biggest items, consumer spending and business investment are the real bell weather of an improving economy, not increase in govt spending which is our tax dollars being spent (and beyond the allocated budgeted amount by over a trillion dollars, too).

Obama is pretty similar to Bill Clinton when come with government spending because they are democrat and during Clinton Admin, economy was in good shape and we got surplus budget so we wouldn't seen in anytime because economy took alot of time to fixed, so you remember about recession in 1980's, that how republican fixed it but took long time after 1980's recession and unemployment rate was bad as well.

You wouldn't know about final job that Obama has done by 2012.

 

[Foxrac]

remember, bush sr left office, we were in debt. when clinton left the office, we were left with a surplus. when bush left, we're left in a deep hole than ever that it is NOT possible for Obama to leave office with a surplus, even if two terms.

thanks bush!

Yup, it will be horribly long time to get surplus.

 

[kokonut]

Hmm...since 2007 it was a Democrat controlled Congress that passed those bills filled with porks,

First rule of thumb, Netrox, it is Congress that passes budgets, not the President. Since 2007 you had a Democrat controlled Congress and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they managed to increase annual federal spending by $900 billion, while a Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion in six years. A major difference on which ones have the tendency to spend even more. And don't forget, during the last three years before Obama took office as President, he served in the Senate that passed those spending bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

Blame Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress......not Bush....for the deficit we see today.

 

[netrox]

always wanting to blame Democrats for our ills... ok

 

[TXgolfer]

Yup, it will be horribly long time to get surplus.

You may be confusing Deficit and Debt. There is no reason why we can't have a surplus this year. Wait actually there are three reasons....House,Senate and Obama.

 

[TXgolfer]

remember, bush sr left office, we were in debt. when clinton left the office, we were left with a surplus. when bush left, we're left in a deep hole than ever that it is NOT possible for Obama to leave office with a surplus, even if two terms.

thanks bush!

You are doing the same thing as Foxrac in this post. Not sure if it is intentional or not. You are combining Budget deficits/surpluses and national debt in the same post to make your point. They are totally different things.

 

[kokonut]

Get used to the idea that it is Congress that passes bills, not the President. It was a Democrat controlled Congress that helped pass those spending bills. Even the Senate voted to raise the spending ceiling up an additional $1.9 trillion dollars to $14.3 trillion up from $12.4 trillion dollars. All of the Democrats voted for it while non of the Republicans supported it.

WASHINGTON—The Senate approved legislation Thursday increasing the federal government's borrowing limit by $1.9 trillion, enough to enable the Treasury to pay its bills through 2010.

The 60-39 vote was strictly along party lines with no Republicans joining the Democratic majority to approve the legislation.

Once the increase is signed into law, the federal government will be able to borrow up to $14.3 trillion, by far the highest amount of debt it has ever held on its books. The current limit of around $12.4 trillion would have been breached by the end of February.

Senate Approves Amendment to Raise Debt Ceiling by $1.9 Trillion - WSJ.com

Get used to it. Democrats owned the spending and deficit problem ever since 2007.

 

[Foxrac]

You may be confusing Deficit and Debt. There is no reason why we can't have a surplus this year. Wait actually there are three reasons....House,Senate and Obama.

I'm refer as deficit, not debt.

 

[Foxrac]

Hmm...since 2007 it was a Democrat controlled Congress that passed those bills filled with porks,

First rule of thumb, Netrox, it is Congress that passes budgets, not the President. Since 2007 you had a Democrat controlled Congress and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they managed to increase annual federal spending by $900 billion, while a Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion in six years. A major difference on which ones have the tendency to spend even more. And don't forget, during the last three years before Obama took office as President, he served in the Senate that passed those spending bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

Blame Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress......not Bush....for the deficit we see today.

Deficit has been started during republican as well but not much as democrat does because we are in 2 wars so have war cost alot of money for us.

Clinton Admin had made surplus during 1990's, that's one of smallest that we had in past since none of republican make any surplus either, even in history.

Additional, we do have bank bailout, that cost alot of money.

 

[Jiro]

A Bridge to Nowhere

 

[kokonut]

Deficit has been started during republican as well but not much as democrat does because we are in 2 wars so have war cost alot of money for us.

Clinton Admin had made surplus during 1990's, that's one of smallest that we had in past since none of republican make any surplus either, even in history.

Normally it takes almost two years until a spending/surplus result shows itself because tax laws, bills passed and such take about about 1 1/2 years for it to take effect. Bush tax cuts couldn't take affect until the previous administration's tax laws expired. Bush took office in 2001 but laws from the Clinton administration continued well into 2001, and then it was 2002 when Bush could hope to see some changes and for Congress to vote on a new tax bill where it would take effect in 2003 but we wouldn't see final result of that until in 2004. We've seen decreasing deficit results beginnng in 2004 and continued well into 2007. And that's the year when you had a Democrat controlled Congress coupled with the start of a souring economy in 2008 when everything went downhill. It still going downhill with even more spending than ever before. You cannot compare Obama's $1.4 trillion dollar deficit spending for 2009 to that of Bush in 2008 which was $460 billion dollars. Obama's spending was almost 4 times as much as Bush's in 2008. In fact, Obama's spending out did Bush last four years deficit spending.

That's inexcusable.

 

[TXgolfer]

Here it is in a nutshell. Regardless of how we got here, we are here now. We are broke, in debt and Obama's plan is to keep spending. His plan is the similar to those who are lower income with major debt who go out and put $500 on their credit card to buy a Real Estate scheme and a book on how to get out of debt! They should be looking for areas to cut back and ways to make more, but they just don't get it.

 

[kokonut]

Here it is in a nutshell. Regardless of how we got here, we are here now. We are broke, in debt and Obama's plan is to keep spending. His plan is the similar to those who are lower income with major debt who go out and put $500 on their credit card to buy a Real Estate scheme and a book on how to get out of debt! They should be looking for areas to cut back and ways to make more, but they just don't get it.

People ought to be raising their voices and concerns about this out of control spending. Already 2010 is figured to have a $1.35 trillion dollar deficit spending according to the latest CBO report. That's $2.7 trillion dollars deficit spending in two years flat. That amount exceeds 1.5 times the amount of Bush total deficit spending in 8 years. What I don't get is why people continue to support such idiocy by a man intent on bankrupting the United States so quickly?

"Never let a crisis go to waste" - Rhamboy....