PDA

View Full Version : GDP shows loss



starjack
01-30-2013, 03:27 PM
In the forth Quarter. Now here i thought every thing is rosy with our prez back in. It is just amazing these number just come out now

paul young
01-30-2013, 04:56 PM
In the forth Quarter. Now here i thought every thing is rosy with our prez back in. It is just amazing these number just come out now


When do you think 4th quarter performance of the economy (or any business, for that matter) should be reported?

BuddyJ
01-30-2013, 05:25 PM
In the forth Quarter. Now here i thought every thing is rosy with our prez back in. It is just amazing these number just come out now

Are you surprised?

road kill
01-31-2013, 05:22 AM
$5 trillion in stimulus
Worst perfomance since '09
Biggest dip in 3 years
Democrats blame Republicans
60% approval rating for Obama

"at this point, does it really matter?"

smillerdvm
01-31-2013, 08:42 AM
$5 trillion in stimulus
Worst perfomance since '09
Biggest dip in 3 years
Democrats blame Republicans
60% approval rating for Obama

"at this point, does it really matter?"

Even though RK has blocked me allegedly because "Im mean" {emails from some of his fellow cheeseheads have implied a different reason having to do with photos} I will use his quote to make a point to others who havent blocked me

He correctly states that "Dems blame Reps"
he fails to mention that Reps blame Dems.
Both of those statements are correct

What is also correct is that the problem is the responsibility of the Dems and the Repubs.
He goes on to state "at this point does it really matter?"

My answer to that question is "YES" At this point it matters more than ever
We are in a crisis. Both the Dems and Reps have had periods of control of both houses of Congress and the White House during the formation of this crisis. In those periods the problem just got worse. To a rational mind that would seem to clearly show that the Dems and Reps have both proven they are the problem and are incapable of solving it; even when they control Congress and the White House.

Yet we keep blindly voting for either the Dems or the Reps to the exclusion of all other parties.
We the sheeple keep voting the same two parties into power; those two parties have caused the problem and have proven they cant & wont solve the problem.

When Franco and others point out the folly of this practice the response from the sheeple is to point fingers at the other party. After ridiculing Franco, All or most will begrudgingly admit that the two party system has failed us. They will also admit that they like much of the platform of other parties; however those parties are too weak to have any effect.

That is a failed argument. If you argue that the Ravens are likely to lose the Super Bowl if they replaced their lines with weak, frail octogenerians from a rest home I would agree. Those old men would be too weak and insignificant to stop the 49ers lines from dominating the game. They are never going to get strong enough too have any impact regardless of how much time they spend in the rec center at retirement village

However politics aint football. In Politics ALL of the strength still comes from we the sheeple; with our votes.
If we the sheeple deny our votes {and $}to the failed Dems & Reps then instantaneously they become the skinny frail ineffective retiree who can no longer have any impact on the result of what is for the USA the ultimate SUPER BOWL.

Need I remind the Dem & Rep denizens of this echo chamber of the definition of insanity???

Please dont anyone quote this post, so as not to expose the delicate RK to anymore of my MEANNESS :)

road kill
01-31-2013, 08:50 AM
Even though RK has blocked me allegedly because "Im mean" {emails from some of his fellow cheeseheads have implied a different reason having to do with photos} I will use his quote to make a point to others who havent blocked me

He correctly states that "Dems blame Reps"
he fails to mention that Reps blame Dems.
Both of those statements are correct

What is also correct is that the problem is the responsibility of the Dems and the Repubs.
He goes on to state "at this point does it really matter?"

My answer to that question is "YES" At this point it matters more than ever
We are in a crisis. Both the Dems and Reps have had periods of control of both houses of Congress and the White House during the formation of this crisis. In those periods the problem just got worse. To a rational mind that would seem to clearly show that the Dems and Reps have both proven they are the problem and are incapable of solving it; even when they control Congress and the White House.

Yet we keep blindly voting for either the Dems or the Reps to the exclusion of all other parties.
We the sheeple keep voting the same two parties into power; those two parties have caused the problem and have proven they cant & wont solve the problem.

When Franco and others point out the folly of this practice the response from the sheeple is to point fingers at the other party. After ridiculing Franco, All or most will begrudgingly admit that the two party system has failed us. They will also admit that they like much of the platform of other parties; however those parties are too weak to have any effect.

That is a failed argument. If you argue that the Ravens are likely to lose the Super Bowl if they replaced their lines with weak, frail octogenerians from a rest home I would agree. Those old men would be too weak and insignificant to stop the 49ers lines from dominating the game. They are never going to get strong enough too have any impact regardless of how much time they spend in the rec center at retirement village

However politics aint football. In Politics ALL of the strength still comes from we the sheeple; with our votes.
If we the sheeple deny our votes {and $}to the failed Dems & Reps then instantaneously they become the skinny frail ineffective retiree who can no longer have any impact on the result of what is for the USA the ultimate SUPER BOWL.

Need I remind the Dem & Rep denizens of this echo chamber of the definition of insanity???

Please dont anyone quote this post, so as not to expose the delicate RK to anymore of my MEANNESS :)

I took you off ignore.
I was feeling a little down and I knew your delightful posts would cheer me up!!!:cool:

smillerdvm
01-31-2013, 09:54 AM
I took you off ignore.
I was feeling a little down and I knew your delightful posts would cheer me up!!!:cool:

Glad to be of service RK. Its always nice to help cheer someone up:)

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the substance of my post

road kill
01-31-2013, 09:58 AM
Glad to be of service RK. Its always nice to help cheer someone up:)

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the substance of my post
Your last 2 posts on POTUS have been excellent.
They have had solid input and great content.

I disagree slightly on the third party issue, but so what, it's your opinion.
That's what this is about.

As far as those pictures, they were "2 other boys that look just like us!"
(Beavis & Butthead reference)

paul young
01-31-2013, 10:53 AM
$5 trillion in stimulus
Worst perfomance since '09
Biggest dip in 3 years
Democrats blame Republicans; Republicans blame Democrats; John Q. Public screwed (again, or is it still...)
60% approval rating for Obama

"at this point, does it really matter?"

Fixed it for ya, Stan! -Paul

starjack
01-31-2013, 01:06 PM
When do you think 4th quarter performance of the economy (or any business, for that matter) should be reported?Not a month later

starjack
01-31-2013, 01:07 PM
Are you surprised?In a word NO

smillerdvm
01-31-2013, 01:29 PM
Not a month later

What then a month prior????
Why dont you check out when these reports typically come out. If its out of the ordinary fill us in

Goose
01-31-2013, 02:20 PM
The keynesian solution - - - after total failure - try, try again.

BuddyJ
01-31-2013, 02:42 PM
In a word NO

And the lying so and so's weren't going to increase taxes---have you looked at your payroll check lately?

Franco
01-31-2013, 02:56 PM
The keynesian solution - - - after total failure - try, try again.

The Keynesian Solution is to throw more money at the problem.

There are some thoughts in marketing that never change. The hardest task any company is faced with is in changing the perceptions by the public of their brand. A brand is a brand, perception is reality to the consumer/voter. Once a brand falls into disfavor, bad image etc., it is almost impossible to change that image no matter how much money a company is willing to reinvest into that brand. No amount of talk will change that image. Budweiser use to be the #1 selling beer. Unfiltered Lucky Strikes were the top selling smokes. The list is very long of brands that were once popular that today are no longer anywhere near the top in market share. The Republican Party is one such broken brand. There is nothing they can say or do that will ever get them back into the White House.

Mainly because the Repub Party has little appeal with the under 40 year olds or anyone that isn't white. Even white females voted Obama, 56% to 44% in ther last election.

So, someone tell me how they will ever return to prominence with their refusal to enter the 21st Century?

road kill
01-31-2013, 02:59 PM
The Keynesian Solution is to throw more money at the problem.

There are some thoughts in marketing that never change. The hardest task any company is faced with is in changing the perceptions by the public of their brand. A brand is a brand, perception is reality to the consumer/voter. Once a brand falls into disfavor, bad image etc., it is almost impossible to change that image no matter how much money a company is willing to reinvest into that brand. No amount of talk will change that image. Budweiser use to be the #1 selling beer. Unfiltered Lucky Strikes were the top selling smokes. The list is very long of brands that were once popular that today are no longer anywhere near the top in market share. The Republican Party is one such broken brand. There is nothing they can say or do that will ever get them back into the White House.

Mainly because the Repub Party has little appeal with the under 40 year olds or anyone that isn't white. Even white females voted Obama, 56% to 44% in ther last election.

So, someone tell me how they will ever return to prominence with their refusal to enter the 21st Century?

You failed to mention that some brands were not popular then, still aren't and never will be.:cool:

Buzz
01-31-2013, 03:30 PM
Did any of you actually look at the numbers? Do you even have the slightest idea what parts of the economy grew and which contracted?

Sure doesn't seem like it judging from the comments here.

GOOD DISCUSSION!

Marvin S
01-31-2013, 08:55 PM
$5 trillion in stimulus
Worst perfomance since '09
Biggest dip in 3 years
Democrats blame Republicans
60% approval rating for Obama

"at this point, does it really matter?"

It does matter & that's why I continue to support those think tanks that have a coherent & consistent message. Today is check writing day :).


Even though RK has blocked me, I will use his quote to make a point to others who havent blocked me

He correctly states that "Dems blame Reps"
he fails to mention that Reps blame Dems.
Both of those statements are correct

What is also correct is that the problem is the responsibility of the Dems and the Repubs.
He goes on to state "at this point does it really matter?"

My answer to that question is "YES" At this point it matters more than ever
We are in a crisis. Both the Dems and Reps have had periods of control of both houses of Congress and the White House during the formation of this crisis. In those periods the problem just got worse. To a rational mind that would seem to clearly show that the Dems and Reps have both proven they are the problem and are incapable of solving it; even when they control Congress and the White House.

Yet we keep blindly voting for either the Dems or the Reps to the exclusion of all other parties.
We the sheeple keep voting the same two parties into power; those two parties have caused the problem and have proven they cant & wont solve the problem.

When Franco and others point out the folly of this practice the response from the sheeple is to point fingers at the other party. After ridiculing Franco, All or most will begrudgingly admit that the two party system has failed us. They will also admit that they like much of the platform of other parties; however those parties are too weak to have any effect.


However politics aint football. In Politics ALL of the strength still comes from we the sheeple; with our votes.
If we the sheeple deny our votes {and $}to the failed Dems & Reps then instantaneously they become the skinny frail ineffective retiree who can no longer have any impact on the result of what is for the USA the ultimate SUPER BOWL.

Need I remind the Dem & Rep denizens of this echo chamber of the definition of insanity???

Please dont anyone quote this post, so as not to expose the delicate RK to anymore of my MEANNESS :)

There are 545 people with the ability to do something - if they don't do it we do have a choice. But ask yourself, you make a good income & are probably intelligent enough to start on the road to straightening things out. Would you give up the life you lead to lead the life they do?

During the periods of control & especially in the R column, the caucuses are not one smooth flowing group.

While you point out Franco as a leading example of someone who has it right, who's going to lead his group? - for the Paul's it is a big fund raising jackpot that they will exploit to it's fullest. When Goldwater is brought up Franco belittles his accomplishments when he's the last politician to have enough charisma to excite the base in any tangible volume. At the least when Perot ran under United We Stand he excited enough folks that we only had one term of GHWB, but we got the Clinton's. If there is going to be a viable 3rd party there must be a charismatic leader.

As for vote denial, it's long been a case of voting against rather than voting for - until there are credible candidates someone is always going to vote what's good for them, which may not be good for us :confused:.

But I'll say this, I've posted twice about uncommon items, AlGore's windfall from AAPL & Chelsea's cushy new directors job (just the tip of the iceberg) with little comment from members of this forum. Until some can comprehend the underlying thought behind those actions, How do you think we can get a credible 3rd party started? Sheeple or No :rolleyes:.

JDogger
01-31-2013, 09:25 PM
Gee, I wonder? Could a contraction in GDP be due to a contraction in military spending? Is that a good or bad thing? JD

Franco
01-31-2013, 09:57 PM
It does matter & that's why I continue to support those think tanks that have a coherent & consistent message. Today is check writing day :).



There are 545 people with the ability to do something - if they don't do it we do have a choice. But ask yourself, you make a good income & are probably intelligent enough to start on the road to straightening things out. Would you give up the life you lead to lead the life they do?

During the periods of control & especially in the R column, the caucuses are not one smooth flowing group.

While you point out Franco as a leading example of someone who has it right, who's going to lead his group? - for the Paul's it is a big fund raising jackpot that they will exploit to it's fullest. When Goldwater is brought up Franco belittles his accomplishments when he's the last politician to have enough charisma to excite the base in any tangible volume. At the least when Perot ran under United We Stand he excited enough folks that we only had one term of GHWB, but we got the Clinton's. If there is going to be a viable 3rd party there must be a charismatic leader.

As for vote denial, it's long been a case of voting against rather than voting for - until there are credible candidates someone is always going to vote what's good for them, which may not be good for us :confused:.

But I'll say this, I've posted twice about uncommon items, AlGore's windfall from AAPL & Chelsea's cushy new directors job (just the tip of the iceberg) with little comment from members of this forum. Until some can comprehend the underlying thought behind those actions, How do you think we can get a credible 3rd party started? Sheeple or No :rolleyes:.

First Marv, it's Pauls not Paul's. The 's is used as a possessive.

Second, I have never belittled Goldwater. I have given him many props here on POTUS. Though an early Libertarian leaning Repub, his legacy is mostly lost in today's Libertarian Party. The cheese, so-to-speak, has been moved.

Third, Dr Ron Paul has retired from the House. He is on a speaking engagement tour raising money for the Liberty Pack which he donates 100% of his speaking fees to and not lining his pocket. Just as he refused to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments from the government for the people he treated in his medical practice. It is called, integrity and you wouldn't know an honest man if you met one! To refer to him as dishonest just demonstrates how corrupt you are Marv.

Lastly, we have that charismatic leader. His name is Sen. Rand Paul and if you haven't been paying attention, he is the most active member in the Senate. He's a reformer that has authored more bills this session than any other Senator. Only to have them rejected by the status quo which you support. And, he traveled to Israel with a Libertarian group this year meeting with Israeli leaders including one of his biggest supporters, Ben Netanyahu. Explaining to him why he would cut back military aide to him as well as the radical Islamic countries that we pour tax dollars into. Before leaving, he visited the main Temple and read the Torah in Hebrew. Impressive to say the least for a non-Jew. Rand makes the rest of the Repubs look like sheep.

sick lids
01-31-2013, 11:33 PM
“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.retrievertraining.net/author/show/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville), Tocqueville: Democracy in America (http://www.retrievertraining.net/work/quotes/90454)

We need to choose who holds an office, not pick from those who crave it at all costs regardless of which party you side with. If an existing POTUS needs to campaign for his job at the end of his first term is he worthy of re-election? And why on Earth would a POTUS save political capital till their last term instead of doing what they are elected to do on day 1, its not like they are not set for life after wining the first time.

Marvin S
02-01-2013, 09:40 AM
I have never belittled Goldwater. IYO

Third, Dr Ron Paul has retired from the House. He is on a speaking engagement tour raising money for the Liberty Pack which he donates 100% of his speaking fees to and not lining his pocket. Just as he refused to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments from the government for the people he treated in his medical practice. It is called, integrity and you wouldn't know an honest man if you met one! To refer to him as dishonest just demonstrates how corrupt you are Marv. Franco - you can drink all the Paul Aid you want, but that doesn't entitle you to make unsubstantiated comments on this forum :confused: He can make all the speaking engagement he wants, who's listening?

Lastly, we have that charismatic leader. His name is Sen. Rand Paul and if you haven't been paying attention, he is the most active member in the Senate. AT least every other month I get a solicitation from the Senator, which gets deposited in the round file immediately beside the one's from Huckaby

I really wanted a reply from smiller - You're beginning to sound & act like those guys at the PO parking lot :rolleyes:.

mngundog
02-01-2013, 10:26 AM
He can make all the speaking engagement he wants, who's listening?
It is hard to take someone very seriously who comes across as somewhat illiterate!!! :D

jeff evans
02-01-2013, 11:08 AM
Can anyone that has commented on Rand Paul name ONE politician who is fighting for American rights and safety more than Paul?

roseberry
02-01-2013, 11:32 AM
The keynesian solution - - - after total failure - try, try again.

classic post! goose where did you study economics?

Marvin S
02-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Can anyone that has commented on Rand Paul name ONE politician who is fighting for American rights and safety more than Paul?

Jeff - they always have a cause that turns to donations - remember Dick Armey of Barney Fag fame - was going to fix the taxing of SS to those recipients who were being taxed on money they had already paid tax on - Never got fixed, he's into some other fund raising effort - It's very hard to take any of the guys seriously, & I mean any of them - you have to work with what you see or as Chuck Knox would say "you play the hand you are dealt" :). Marvin

Buzz
02-01-2013, 12:10 PM
And here I thought that Obama was cooking the books.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/a-bad-jobs-report-turns-out-to-have-been-wrong/



A Bad Jobs Report Turns Out to Have Been WrongBy FLOYD NORRIS (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author/floyd-norris/)
The jobs report for last March was a big disappointment, one that spurred talk of a new recession. Now we learn that report was simply wrong, that March was actually a very good month and that jobs rose much more rapidly in 2012 than we had previously been told.
Last April, with the presidential campaign heating up, the Labor Department reported that its survey of employers showed the economy added only 120,000 jobs in March, far below forecasts. The unemployment rate — based on a separate survey of households — did decline a bit, to 8.2 percent, but that was widely dismissed as indicating some people gave up looking for work.
From the next day’s Times:

Republicans pounced on the lower than expected payroll numbers, with the party’s front-runner, Mitt Romney, declaring, “This is a weak and very troubling jobs report that shows the employment remains stagnant.” Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, also deplored the numbers and laid the blame for them at Mr. Obama’s feet.
The report came out on Good Friday, when the stock market was closed, so investors had all weekend to ponder the numbers. They did not like what they saw, and the Dow tumbled on both Monday and Tuesday.
Now we know what really happened in March. On Friday, the Labor Department issued its “benchmark revision” for the 12 months through March 2012. The new numbers are based on far more reliable — but slower to arrive — counts of the the number of workers for whom unemployment insurance premiums were paid. It turns out 205,000 jobs were added that month.
For all of 2012, we are now told that the average month added 181,000 jobs. A month ago, we were told the average for the year was only 153,000, basically the same as in 2011. With the revisions, we are told that the 2011 average was really 175,000.
At the end of last year, the official figures showed employment had risen 3.7 percent from the bottom in February 2010 to the end of 2012. Now that figure is 4.1 percent.
A year from now we will get benchmark revisions for the last nine months of 2012. It is quite possible the 2012 annual average will then rise further, to more than 200,000.
A couple of weeks ago, speaking in Hong Kong, Charles Evans, the president of the Chicago Fed, was asked about what would show things were getting better.He replied, according to Reuters (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100375995/US_Economy_to_Grow_25_This_Year_Fed039s_Evans), “One good indicator of labor market improvement would be if we saw payroll employment increase by 200,000 each month for a number of months. We’ve been averaging about 150,000, but it’s been very uneven.”

Turns out the average was a lot higher than the Fed thought. Could that signify we are closer to an end to quantitative easing than we thought?

road kill
02-01-2013, 12:16 PM
And here I thought that Obama was cooking the books.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/a-bad-jobs-report-turns-out-to-have-been-wrong/

Buzz, are you then saying that the economy is a hummin'?????


Really????

Marvin S
02-01-2013, 12:23 PM
And here I thought that Obama was cooking the books.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/a-bad-jobs-report-turns-out-to-have-been-wrong/

You live in an expanding college community - you won't see what those who live elsewhere see - while the reports are useful info they do not tell the whole story - the recovery is not going to happen as long as potential employess are unprepared for boots on the ground conditions - This last month I have read 3 different articles about robots, in 1 of which they quote your favorite economist who stated "there will not be a robot that vacuums a room for 15 years" that was 3 years before the Roomba - they now have robots for wait staff, how cool :cool:. So where do the unemployable work?

mngundog
02-01-2013, 12:28 PM
You live in an expanding college community - you won't see what those who live elsewhere see - while the reports are useful info they do not tell the whole story - the recovery is not going to happen as long as potential employess are unprepared for boots on the ground conditions - This last month I have read 3 different articles about robots, in 1 of which they quote your favorite economist who stated "there will not be a robot that vacuums a room for 15 years" that was 3 years before the Roomba - they now have robots for wait staff, how cool :cool:. So where do the unemployable work?
In Washington :D

jeff evans
02-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Jeff - they always have a cause that turns to donations - remember Dick Armey of Barney Fag fame - was going to fix the taxing of SS to those recipients who were being taxed on money they had already paid tax on - Never got fixed, he's into some other fund raising effort - It's very hard to take any of the guys seriously, & I mean any of them - you have to work with what you see or as Chuck Knox would say "you play the hand you are dealt" :). Marvin

Marvin, I can agree with most of that. I cannot understand why the NDAA story isnt receiving more press. The gov is simultaneously trying to take our guns while passing a bill that allows the gov to indefinitely detain and/or fire on American citizens on american soil if the gov feels you are a threat. At the same time were giving F-16's and Abrams tanks to the enemy yet Rand Paul is the only politician to stand up and try and stop the madness. So if he is receiving donations for causes that strengthen America and protect the American citizenry and our constitution more power to him. On the contrary most of the donations given to politicians lately have been to destroy America. Your thoughts,
Oh and chuck Knox for president:):)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/ndaa-indefinite-detention-bill-rand-paul_n_2347774.htmlthe madness.

Franco
02-01-2013, 12:54 PM
Jeff - they always have a cause that turns to donations - remember Dick Armey of Barney Fag fame - was going to fix the taxing of SS to those recipients who were being taxed on money they had already paid tax on - Never got fixed, he's into some other fund raising effort - It's very hard to take any of the guys seriously, & I mean any of them - you have to work with what you see or as Chuck Knox would say "you play the hand you are dealt" :). Marvin

Back in the days before the tax payers worked for the politicians, when government worked for the people, political contributions came from the people. Not like today where Special Interest in the form of Packs control election spending!

They few Reformers do NOT get the large Corporate and Special Interest money like we witnessed this last election with Obama and Rmoney.
People like retired Ron Paul and even now, Rand Paul, get thier support from the people! They are not the Special Interest puppets like the ones you support.

You have a hard time supporting candidates that believe that they are there to serve the people. Candidates willing to fight for what is right and are not good at getting along with your status quo! Taking baseless cheap shots of real servants of the people is one reason why people like you are a big part of the problem!

P S
Last month, RP spoke in front of over 5,000 students. Texas A & M is one of the most Conservative U's in this country and they love him there!

road kill
02-01-2013, 01:09 PM
Something kind of interesting.
Doubt you will hear about it in the state run media.

Wisconsin's UE rate is now at 6%.
As a result extended unemployment is discontinued.
Now, in order to get income thousands (if not tens of thousands) will have to take jobs.
My buddy at the VA claims there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of job openings he can not fill.

So......instead of giving out $$$ the state will be taking in even more $$$.
That would doublr the revenue at the state level.
Instead of giving a cheesehead $100 for not working, he will be paying $100 in taxes.
This along with the surplus generated by ACT 10 instituted by Governor Walker will have some very interesting ramifications nationally!

People working, paying taxes and buying stuff................"what a country!!!"

I understand there is more to it than the simplistic way I have presented, or is there?:cool:

Marvin S
02-01-2013, 01:34 PM
Texas A & M is one of the most Conservative U's in this country and they love him there!

Not that this has any relevance but they are also, along with Ohio State, USC, the shorthorns, Arizona & Wisconsin teams who have never had a QB alum run a team in the SB. Though I think WI will be off that list shortly :).

mngundog
02-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Something kind of interesting.
Doubt you will hear about it in the state run media.

Wisconsin's UE rate is now at 6%.
As a result extended unemployment is discontinued.
Now, in order to get income thousands (if not tens of thousands) will have to take jobs.
My buddy at the VA claims there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of job openings he can not fill.

So......instead of giving out $$$ the state will be taking in even more $$$.
That would doublr the revenue at the state level.
Instead of giving a cheesehead $100 for not working, he will be paying $100 in taxes.
This along with the surplus generated by ACT 10 instituted by Governor Walker will have some very interesting ramifications nationally!

People working, paying taxes and buying stuff................"what a country!!!"

I understand there is more to it than the simplistic way I have presented, or is there?:cool:
Somehow I believe Buzz is going to tell you how MN was able to drop our unemployment rate down to 5.5%. :D

road kill
02-01-2013, 01:58 PM
Somehow I believe Buzz is going to tell you how MN was able to drop our unemployment rate down to 5.5%. :D

I'll have to take your word for it.
Buzz is intellectually above communicating with me.'

BonMallari
02-01-2013, 02:01 PM
Not that this has any relevance but they are also, along with Ohio State, USC, the shorthorns, Arizona & Wisconsin teams who have never had a QB alum run a team in the SB. Though I think WI will be off that list shortly :).

Bobby Layne 1952 NFL Champions w/Detroit Lions.....former University Of Texas LONGHORN quarterback

Marvin S
02-01-2013, 04:23 PM
Bobby Layne 1952 NFL Champions w/Detroit Lions.....former University Of Texas LONGHORN quarterback

That was SB??

Golddogs
02-01-2013, 05:49 PM
In the forth Quarter. Now here i thought every thing is rosy with our prez back in. It is just amazing these number just come out now

Can't be all bad, Dow just topped 14000 and there was a gain of 157000 jobs. Not going at the speed of light, but going. Housing starts are up and gun and ammo sales are topping the charts in record sales.

road kill
02-01-2013, 05:54 PM
Can't be all bad, Dow just topped 14000 and there was a gain of 157000 jobs. Not going at the speed of light, but going. Housing starts are up and gun and ammo sales are topping the charts in record sales.
Is it finally NOT Bush's fault anymore?

Golddogs
02-01-2013, 06:27 PM
Is it finally NOT Bush's fault anymore?

Don't know if I would go that far.:rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
02-01-2013, 07:13 PM
In Washington :D
Now that's a good one!

luvmylabs23139
02-01-2013, 07:25 PM
Can't be all bad, Dow just topped 14000 and there was a gain of 157000 jobs. Not going at the speed of light, but going. Housing starts are up and gun and ammo sales are topping the charts in record sales.

Unemployment rate went up.

RadarsDad
02-01-2013, 09:12 PM
Had to laugh when I heard it on the news they immediately blamed Bush. You got to be kidding!

Gerry Clinchy
02-01-2013, 10:08 PM
Had to laugh when I heard it on the news they immediately blamed Bush. You got to be kidding!
I suppose the rationalization is that the hole was so deep that it takes much longer to dig out of it ... and depend on most people not to notice that the hole keeps getting deeper?

Henry V
02-02-2013, 09:30 AM
Private sector growth + large retractions in Gooberment spending = drop in GDP. Let's bring on more spending cuts. Clearly we need to take more austerity measures at a rapid pace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/q4_gdp2.png

Henry V
02-02-2013, 09:32 AM
Might as well add some more facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/gdp_q4_components.jpg

Golddogs
02-02-2013, 10:37 AM
I suppose the rationalization is that the hole was so deep that it takes much longer to dig out of it ... and depend on most people not to notice that the hole keeps getting deeper?

Maybe this will help explain: ( the bold in red at the end says it all. )
Real World Economics

So was Bush the big spender, or Obama? Or is there another answer?

Who is really responsible for the mess we are in? Consider two assertions: 1. Federal spending during the Obama administration has averaged 23.5 percent of gross domestic product, which is well above the post-World War II average of 19.1 percent. 2. Federal spending under Obama’s administration has grown at the slowest rate of any since Calvin Coolidge.

Both assertions are correct. But how can that be?

Putting the first in context is easy. The oft-cited 19.1 percent figure hangs largely on lower spending during the Truman and Eisenhower years, both deficit hawks. The average for the 30 years before Obama is 20.5 percent, and that of the free-spending 1980s is 21.8 percent. So the 23.5 percent is not as big a jump as some would have you believe.

Nevertheless, if spending levels are higher, how can growth of spending under Obama be low? The answer is that the big jump in spending took place in fiscal 2009, the last of the George W. Bush administration, in which outlays hit 25.2 percent of GDP. Spending that year was $3,518 billion compared with $3,538 billion for fiscal 2012, which ended four months ago.

Adjusted for even the mild inflation over that period, real spending actually dropped over the first four Obama years.

You may quickly protest :“But Barack Obama was president in 2009, not Bush!” Yes, but a fiscal year starts nearly four months before a new president is inaugurated. And it always takes a while for any new president to get tax or spending changes through Congress and even longer for that to alter either tax revenue or spending.

So, to the extent that any president is responsible for taxes and spending in a given fiscal year, 2009 belongs to the Bush administration, just as 2001 does to Clinton, 1993 to George H.W. Bush, 1989 to Reagan and 1981 to Jimmy Carter.

Didn’t Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan pass Congress quickly, however, and didn’t it raise spending? Yes. The Congressional Budget Office and the executive branch Office of Management and Budget agree that it added about $260 billion to the 2009 federal deficit. But, just as opponents of the plan pointed out, it takes time for new spending to be implemented. Moreover, about a third of stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, not spending increases. The tax cuts went into effect faster than the spending, so new Obama spending initiatives accounted for, at most, $140 billion of a deficit that totaled $1,412 billion.

So was Bush the big spender then? No, not really. He had asked Congress for and had gotten his own smaller Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. But since that consisted almost entirely of shortterm tax rebates that largely fell into fiscal 2008, it did not increase 2009’s spending or deficit.

Yes, his administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program did approve spending $700 billion, mostly to bail out teetering Wall Street firms. And some $300 billion of that went out the door right away. So yes, Bush administration initiatives did contribute to the record outlays and deficits, but only in part.

Subtract $140 billion in Obama
initiatives and $300 billion in Bush ones and there still would have been outlays of $3,078 billion, some 22 percent of GDP. Moreover, as defenders of Bush will correctly point out, while he properly submitted a proposed budget for that fiscal year, Congress never passed a budget bill. Instead, as has been true ever since, funding was authorized and appropriations made through “continuing resolutions” by Congress, both houses of which had Democratic majorities in 2008.

So did these Democrats in Congress force through big new programs over the impotent objections of President Bush? Not really. Continuing resolutions are never pure extensions of the prior year’s activities; some minor programs and extra spending get slipped in. But for 2009, those totaled only a few billion. And the president has to sign such resolutions, too, just as he would ordinary budget bills. So Bush had as much power that year as any other president does.

So where did the extra spending come from? Well, comparing 2009 outlays with those of the prior fiscal year, which had ended just as Wall Street was melting down, shows some big increases.

Spending on national defense jumped by $45 billion. Social Security payments rose by $65 billion and Medicare by $ 39 billion. Other health programs, primarily Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, increased by $54 billion. And the “income security” rubric that includes any other “welfare” or “income transfer” programs went up by $103 billion.

Oho! Why did Congress pass and Bush approve big new welfare programs? How could they, if the only funding legislation passed was resolutions that supposedly “continued” the previous year’s programs?

The answer is that they didn’t.

Spending in this category rose primarily in two areas, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps, and in the federal portion of unemployment compensation. (And some of the increased unemployment spending, that for “extended benefits,” beyond the statutory entitlement of 26 weeks, was included in the Obama stimulus, so be careful not to double count.) It was not that Congress and the president authorized major new programs, it was that spending on programs set up decades earlier automatically rose sharply as the recession set in.

Add all that to the fact that the 2008 deficit already had been $459 billion and that tax revenue fell by $420 billion and one can see how the hole in the 2009 budget set a record.

Fortunately, spending has pretty much been flat since then, and the annual deficit for fiscal 2012 was down $324 million from four years earlier. But we are still in a mess. More on who is responsible in a column next week.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at elotterman@pioneerpress.com.

It was not that Congress and the president authorized new programs, it was that spending set up decades earlier rose as the recession set in.

Gerry Clinchy
02-02-2013, 11:15 AM
I'm not an economic genius, but might not private sector growth have been more healthy were it not for the increases in regulation during those 4 years? If so, more vigor in the private sector could have better offset the decrease in govt spending.

And, if we all can agree, that there is plenty of "fat" in the defense budget, then trimming it down (with common sense) should be a good thing? Was Pelosi's USAF plane part of the defense budget ... or is it put somewhere else?

No question that we must be spending more on programs like unemployment, and social welfare, including but not limited to things like food stamps. That portion of Fed spending would have increased, and the graph shows an increase in Fed spending outside of defense spending. Perhaps it was an error not to place a limit of some sort on those automatic budget increases?

One of the problems with a lot of govt spending on all levels is that if a given dept doesn't spend all its money this year, the funding might be reduced next year, rather than automatically increased (if we had a budget, that is!) So dept heads are encouraged to be frivolous v. frugal. Perhaps it would be a good thing to incentivize efficiency?

I think part of the problem with the alternate energy loans was that they gave less good loans due to the fact that there weren't enough good applicants. Paperwork might have been a function for smaller, innovative businesses; not to mention the cronyism. Sort of reminds me of the housing bubble about loaning money to people who could never afford to make the mortgage payments.

Marvin S
02-02-2013, 12:08 PM
Private sector growth + large retractions in Gooberment spending = drop in GDP. Let's bring on more spending cuts. Clearly we need to take more austerity measures at a rapid pace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/q4_gdp2.png


Might as well add some more facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/gdp_q4_components.jpg

Nice charts - but what do they really say? I know that what I see is the protection of the budget with corresponding unwarranted raises in the public sector, but a loss of service. As the citizen in Seattle asked "if my garbage is going to be picked up every other week rather than weekly, will my garbage fee be lowered. We both know the answer to that :).

Like Gerry, a lowering of the defense budget does no bother me, but there is always the concern that like most government entities the essential functions will disappear 1st.

2tall
02-02-2013, 02:13 PM
Hmmmmm...... Where are all the chicken littles that were forecasting doom to the private sector due to the elections??? DOW closed over 14k Friday? How did this happen if business is collapsing due to Obama? Certainly, I don't know enough economics to understand why things are improving some, but the dire predictions do not seem to be coming true.

Marvin S
02-02-2013, 05:39 PM
Hmmmmm...... Where are all the chicken littles that were forecasting doom to the private sector due to the elections??? DOW closed over 14k Friday? How did this happen if business is collapsing due to Obama? Certainly, I don't know enough economics to understand why things are improving some, but the dire predictions do not seem to be coming true.

The Dow is 30 large stocks unequally weighted that are somewhat indicative of the where the market is headed in general. It was up around 6% last year so is not going gangbusters. The S&P 500 & the Nasdaq did provide a double digit return in an index.

While the politico's can do a lot to damage the market, they rarely contribute to the growth of the economy as much as they would like someone who does not understand economics to believe :).

I think it's nice, just remember - if your portfolio is not at a minimum tracking the DOW's growth you're not doing well. If you have no portfolio, what has your voting for the POTUS done for you :-P.

Henry V
02-04-2013, 10:37 PM
Nice charts - but what do they really say? I know that what I see is the protection of the budget with corresponding unwarranted raises in the public sector, but a loss of service. As the citizen in Seattle asked "if my garbage is going to be picked up every other week rather than weekly, will my garbage fee be lowered. We both know the answer to that :).

Like Gerry, a lowering of the defense budget does no bother me, but there is always the concern that like most government entities the essential functions will disappear 1st.

Well Marvin, charts don't "say" anything do they? These charts present data in a form that is usually more understandable than raw numbers (i.e. picture paints a thousand words).

The first chart shows a bit more of the story than the post by the originator of this thread
In the forth Quarter. Now here i thought every thing is rosy with our prez back in. It is just amazing these number just come out now. Of course most of the right wingers in the echo chamber jumped on the bandwagon despite numerous posts that refuted the assumption that the timing of the books were cooked and presented more facts than "GDP dropped". I figured I would throw in a chart clearly showing that a drop in government spending was the primary reason for the drop in GDP even despite strong private sector growth. Given many here have stated that we are now moving toward socialism and many also espouse dramatic measures to cut government spending fast, I thought maybe someone might learn something from these facts or post a different perspective based in facts.

The second charts presents some historical data clearly demonstrating a recovery by the private sector and a reduction in government as a percentage of GDP. I know these facts are inconsistent with the beliefs of many here in the echo chamber but I thought I would post them to see if someone would present another side of the story.

Nice garbage story but what is it's relevance to this topic? If you view it as paying per unit of garbage disposed, it does not matter how often it gets picked up.

I think large cuts in defense spending are needed over the long term. We spend more on it than the next 7 countries combined. Not a fiscally conservative position or policy. Cut other wasteful spending too.

Marvin S
02-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Private sector growth + large retractions in Gooberment spending = drop in GDP. Let's bring on more spending cuts. Clearly we need to take more austerity measures at a rapid pace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/q4_gdp2.png


Might as well add some more facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/gdp_q4_components.jpg


Well Marvin, charts don't "say" anything do they? These charts present data in a form that is usually more understandable than raw numbers (i.e. picture paints a thousand words).

The first chart shows a bit more of the story than the post by the originator of this thread Of course most of the right wingers in the echo chamber jumped on the bandwagon despite numerous posts that refuted the assumption that the timing of the books were cooked and presented more facts than "GDP dropped". I figured I would throw in a chart clearly showing that a drop in government spending was the primary reason for the drop in GDP even despite strong private sector growth. Given many here have stated that we are now moving toward socialism and many also espouse dramatic measures to cut government spending fast, I thought maybe someone might learn something from these facts or post a different perspective based in facts.

The second charts presents some historical data clearly demonstrating a recovery by the private sector and a reduction in government as a percentage of GDP. I know these facts are inconsistent with the beliefs of many here in the echo chamber but I thought I would post them to see if someone would present another side of the story.

Nice garbage story but what is it's relevance to this topic? If you view it as paying per unit of garbage disposed, it does not matter how often it gets picked up.

I think large cuts in defense spending are needed over the long term. We spend more on it than the next 7 countries combined. Not a fiscally conservative position or policy. Cut other wasteful spending too.

I had hoped for your take, but a canned response is better than nothing! My take - 1st chart - Consumer spending is up, it's the holidays - construction is expanding some - Inventories are being drawn down - the military is getting an Iraq payout - & fed, state & local governments are hunkering down to protect their budget - that's my view. 2nd chart - the private sector is contibuting more percentagewise (of what?) & the public sector is doing less - though I would venture the public sector to be fairly static. I do not know what GDP stands for?

I would venture the garbage story to be more relevant to the OP than your attempted shot at at RWer's within the echo chamber. From my vantage point I see a lot of normal people with different viewpoints. I liked the chicken farmers story very much - I would ask " Have you ever done manual labor for a living?" If you had for any period you would have a different worldview!

I'm not a macroeconomist - it's not necessary at the level we invest. But finding niches is necessary in order to be successful, & I have a long term record through some really bad markets of doing that very well. A considerable portion of our retirement income comes from that source.

I thought HPL post about productivity, GDP/capita & Household income to be enlightening as I have seen that over the last few years. What I do have is a serious concern about making the less employable productive in this environment, not everyone will have the shot at the American Dream as those of previous generations.