Q4 2012 the US GDP shrank by 0.1%, compared to 3.1% growth the previous quarter. This was a surprise for the most part.
A recession is when we have two consecutive quarters of contraction, so if the first three months of this year don't post growth we'll be back in one.
Right now we are looking at spending cuts and increased taxes on most Americans, so prepare yourselves for the doom and gloom
1. We've been through worse.
2. No empire lasts forever.
3. This is what happens when Republicans start wars and no one stops them.
4. All of the above.
1 - True, although our 'recovery' has been exaggerated through monetary policy which is essentially kicking the can down the road, and making the can much bigger.
2 - True.
3 - War actually stimulates GDP, and let's not throw this off-topic by getting into who is responsible for the wars.
4 - Almost.
Well, it's hard to deny that the Republicans started the wars. I mean, they all started under Dubya Bush. The issue is that no one's stepping up to stop them--neither the Democrats nor the Republicans.
If there's any real reason to dislike Obama, it's that he's waffled on his promise to end those meaningless wars. (And to close Gitmo, but that's a different story.)
The President cannot declare war. Like I said, let's not take this off-track.
No mention was made of the declaration of war which was worse as congress ( if they did care) could have some say in it.
You forgot to mention in your post that there was one of the most expensive negative campaigns mounted ever and that the fiscal cliff might have made some manufacturers pull back on their orders and inventory.
The prospect of another quarter or two being negative growth was predicted because of the two reasons I cited before.
While I agree with the plausibility of your prediction your manipulating the reasons are less than genuine.
I think you're reading more into what I've said than I'm actually saying.
I said the POTUS can't declare war because some people like to blame the wars on Bush.
I also said our stimulus spending has provided a short-term boost to GDP.
So, what reasons have I been manipulating?
"Q4 2012 the US GDP shrank by 0.1%, compared to 3.1% growth the previous quarter. This was a surprise for the most part." JaxonRaine
No surprise here as I stated the negative campaign and fiscal cliff was predicted long before the quarter showed a shrinking of the economy. I.E. manipulation of the facts.
Ok, no surprise to you. Projections were, I believe, right around 1%. That's what I meant. 'For the most part' means that I'm not saying it was a surprise to everyone.
I think it was no surprise for anybody who reads or watches the news. They hounded the point mercilessly. As far as the POTUS being able to declare war with out congress I will give you that.
The fiscal cliff that was expected wasn't expected for Q4 2012. The fiscal cliff was going to cause a contraction in 2013.
Absolutely it was! The slowdown began in September throughout the economy as people were holding onto money fearful of the eventual doomsday on January 1st as congress dragged its feet in their fight over the solution they never made. Honestly you never seem to give up on wanting to throw some slant into the works that could compete with your obsession to be, or through some drawn out argument right.
The house sales and factory orders slowed to a crawl as the powers that be sorted out the mess. WOW! The combination of that with the election from Hell that the media totally missed as predicting a Romney victory instead of the crushing defeat made the last quarter a total wait and see time period.
Ok. I just don't care enough to keep arguing with you about this.
I appreciate that as it was a losing position on your part to take in the first place.
No, it's simply not an important enough matter to go through projections and past examples of what happens to the economy when it is facing tax/spending changes.
100 pounds of effort for 1 ounce of understanding.
If you pay attention, there are a lot of topics that I don't address, or don't put much effort into. There are things I care about, and things I don't care as much about. There's no need to get into a 5-page argument, where I will be largely mis-represented and half of what I say ignored(as always), about the effects of future tax/spending legislation on current economic activity.
Really? "The slowdown began in September throughout the economy as people were holding onto money fearful of the eventual doomsday "?? Gee, president Obama did nothing to avert the fiscal Cliff - he had a long time to address it and left it til' the last minute purely for political reasons - you call that leadership? Well if you listen to the media they say the real cause for the negative"growth" was less government and defense spending! Guess you want to have it both ways. What the media is really saying is that the economy is so bad there is no growth without huge government spending. And that's suppose to be a good thing? 'Guess YOU just need to open your wallet and give more money to the Government, cause they are running out of it, whoops they are out of it, they are printing billions .... good your children can pay that off so don't you worry.
Those "republican wars" cost approximately 1/4 of President Obama's debt spending. Seriously? I'm not saying that republicans did nothing to get us into this mess, only that the wars are being used as a scapegoat here. Knock the wars all you want, but they are not the reason we are in financial meltdown. Why is it that President Obama can spend, and it's a stimulus, but all of the money spent during these wars does nothing to stimulate the economy? That argument makes no sense, and it actually contradicts President Obama's entire stimulus plan.
The wars may only be a part of the debt spending, but they're the biggest contributor to it. And the wars in question are highly unpopular and have generally been deemed as a bad idea. So yeah, dropping them and leaving would only do us good.
They were not the most significant contributor to our debt. Runaway spending was, by far, the biggest contributor to our debt.
And when you use money to purchase goods (like, say, tanks and weapons and ammunition), you're doing which of the following things?
What's your point? We all understand that it's spending, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say that all government spending, except in the case of the wars, is a stimulus to the economy and then say that the reason we are in such bad shape is because of war spending. That makes absolutely no sense.
it's not like the democrats didn't vote for the wars..you kidding me - they are the ones who said the Afganistan war was the one we needed to escalate. Even though BO preached against the surge in Iraq as president he continued all Bush administration policies on the wars.
Oh, but democrats have the answer to that one. Bush lied. He fabricated evidence, and we went to war based on false information. Always an excuse. People need to own their decisions. Democrats largely supported both the war in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan.
Obama should have extended all tax cuts across the board. How come that didn't happen?
Because politicians don't understand how healthy markets operate. It's like we keep opening up a surgery patient to apply internal bandaids, when the patient will heal much better and more quickly on its own.
The real problem is we need to spend more, ask Obama. He's a real expert on the economy!
It's true, though, in a crazy paradoxical sort of way. Yes, spending more money will, indeed, be a great boost to the economy's growth. The problem, however, is that most people don't have the money TO inject into the system, and so it's gonna be a slow and painful process.
"...most people"? I was talking about the government-they just print the money. Where have you been?
Short-term boost, yes.
But it's not free money. It causes more long-term pain than short-term gain, so you better make sure the short-term gain is worth it.
He's been doing it along - hasn't helped the short term at all - 2 % GDP growth is worst in history for a recovery. Actually recovery began officially before one cent of stimulus was spent.
Politicians are okay with that, because it makes them look successful. Once they are out of office, years down the road, we all pay.
If it were not for the hit from slower inventory growth and the deepest plunge in defense spending in 40 years, the economy would have grown at a respectable 2.5 percent rate. In addition, economists said Superstorm Sandy, which struck the East Coast in late October may have reduced GDP by about half a point.
"Obviously, the headline number is a bit jarring, but the underlying details of the report, by and large, are consistent with an economy that is growing probably at a trend basis of about two percent," said Michael Hanson, a senior economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected GDP to rise at a 1.1 percent rate and none had predicted a contraction. While many were surprised by the drop in output, they were heartened by the acceleration in consumer spending and rebound in business investment, which pointed to some fundamental economic strength.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ … 7520130130
That's precious 2.5% is respectable! for a recovery? That's anemic and your explanations are as bogus as 2.5% is being respectable. We are heading for a recession, wait till Obama care kicks in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXVLU77RFc
And wait till you see the revision for the last quarter. The truth is "if this or that" has no bearing on reality - it's not 2.5, it was negative. Stop trying to spin it.
I give you Reuters and you give me youtube...nuff said
"There were several bright spots in the GDP report."
"For one, household income after taxes and inflation increased at a strong 6.8 percent rate. That allowed households to step up their saving, and the saving rate rose by more than a percentage point."
"Consumers were also helped by slowing inflation. An inflation gauge in the report advanced at just a 1.2 percent pace, down from 1.6 percent in the third quarter. So-called core prices rose just 0.9 percent, the smallest gain in two years."
"Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity, rose at a 2.2 percent rate, accelerating from the prior quarter's 1.6 percent growth pace, while business investment rebounded after its first drop in 1-1/2 years."
"The housing market was another positive.
"Homebuilding grew at a 15.3 percent rate after notching a 13.5 percent growth pace in the third quarter. It added to growth last year for the first time since 2005."
"A turnaround in the housing market will be a key support to the economy this year, with homebuilding contributing to growth and higher home prices supporting consumer spending," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial in Pittsburgh."
(Additional reporting by Leah Schnurr in New York; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Tim Dobbyn)
Additional reading for the glass half full
Terrible weekly Jobless claims this moring up 20,000 over estimates and 50,000 over last week - Unemployment figures tomorrow expected at 160,000 jobs just enough to match new people coming into workforce every month -will do nothing for the 20,000,000+ still unemployed. Guess you think these figures are respectable?
Holiday spending went up only .2% terrible economy and there is always an excuse given for economic figures like these and it is just spin. Has nothing to do with the reality of the figures which is all that matters, not what could have or should have happened in someone's agenda driven opinion.
Yeah youtube video. Watch this one (the longer explanation of how Obamacare will destroy the economy) and maybe you'll learn something (borrow a brain from some one first, might help). Or have you read the whole bill and can tell us about it..yeah right.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/29/wat … -briefing/
Actually I have and will find the link for you if you need to borrow my brain The heritage foundation is a right wing lobbyist group and FOX news in a right wing television show....Try to expand your avenues of research and you may actually learn something.
Its interesting that you claim FOX is so right wing, I wonder why they would have someone like Dennis Kucinich working with them?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1241824
Are we really trying to argue that the economy is good or getting better? This isn't what economic recovery looks like. If you want to see real numbers, look at what Reagan did after four years of Carter. It did take a few years, but recovery actually occurred. This isn't what recovery looks like.
The Great Depression has two meanings. One is the horrendous debacle of 1929-33 during which unemployment rose from 3 to 25 percent as the nation's output fell over 25 percent and prices over 30 percent, in what also has been called the Great Contraction. A second meaning has the Great Depression as the entire decade of the thirties, the anxieties and apprehensions for which John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is a metaphor. Much has been written about the unprecedented drop in economic activity in the Great Contraction, with questions about its causes and the reasons for its protracted decline especially prominent. The amount of scholarship devoted to these issues dwarfs that dealing with the recovery. But there indeed was a recovery, though long, tortuous, and uneven. In fact, it was well over twice as long as the contraction.
The economy hit its trough in March 1933. Whether or not by coincidence, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office that month, initiating the New Deal and its fabled first hundred days, among which was the creation in June 1933 of its principal recovery vehicle, the NIRA — National Industrial Recovery Act.
I just watched a report where politicians were talking about how this would help the economy. In order to rebuild, billions will be spent. Of course, this supposes that government spending can improve the economy. Doesn't President Obama believe government spending can help the economy?
What will happen (in 2014), once people realize that Oba MA Care will involve fines of up to $1200 a year for those who do not have insurance???
Then, what will happen if some are not willing to pay that fine? (Like smokers who will then have to pay $10,000 a year for insurance? I have heard It will go up from $5,000 in insurance per year for smokers under Oba MA Care.) Is this all true? (-watch the above You Tube video. It is. And worse.)
. . .and CNBC is always truthful and unbiased.
Not true and the fines are not enforceable. Crude and obvious fear mongering
Yes, President Obama has done such a great job explaining what will happen to all of us. This is the largest government program in 60 or more years, and we, the people, really have no clue about what is going to happen with Obamacare. At best, isn't this a total failure when it comes to communication?
"We the people who have not made a sufficient effort to inform ourselves really have no clue what is going on" fixed it for you
Take some personal responsibility and educate yourself on the matter, there are plenty of good unbiased summaries if you don't want to read the whole bill but I recommend you do.
The fines are enforceable because they will be tacked onto to your income tax bill, unless you provide the proper forms proving that you have your own insurance.
Why do you say they are not enforceable?????
Obamacare is 2,700 pages and growing. Seriously? Nobody really knows what Obamacare will bring. Summarize all you want; Nobody can truly predict what will happen with Obamacare. No matter what, this law is too long, but then again, I'm sure it has to be long in order to be as intrusive as it is.
As for personal responsibility, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING! I want to be personally responsible for my own health insurance. I don't need President Obama to dictate whether I need insurance and what it should look like. That's too intrusive.
Great then buy your own private policy
I have one. Why should the government punish other people who do not wish to have one?
It's a way to keep tax payers from being punished by their desire to not have insurance, so they use the ER as their doc office, etc. etc. Now they can still choose to not have insurance, but will pay a tax to cover their inevitable need for medical attention.
What if they have enough to afford paying cash?
Then they have enough to afford the tax as well...I don't know why anyone wouldn't want insurance, even if you are exrememly wealthy...
The point is, it takes away freedom. It's coercion, not to mention a horrible precedent to say that Congress can tax you on inaction.
Punish people for the actions of others though... that's what America has always been about.
I understand that people who do not have insurance use the emergency room, at our expense. That is certainly a problem, but forcing insurance on all people is not the solution. The solution is to provide services for these people and then require some form of payment, something.
If Jesus is interdependence, Independence is God.
Dependence is for minors and the truly deserving: (Aged, handicapped, etc)
with all the new taxes and expanded detrimental policies on business, I will be surprised if we don't just fly past recession and head straight into depression.
especially since the Leadership has stated that we do not have a spending problem.
it is obvious that when you elect community disorganizers into the top pots, the grog will always froth over and flood the commune with destructive rubble.
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
It should be obvious to the objective that the programs pursued by Barack Obama have failed. Unemployment grinds on at over 9% , even as the ranks of the hard core unemployed, no longer counted in that figure,...
by Ralph Deeds8 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world....
by fishskinfreak20088 years ago
So President Obama's approval rating after one month is...only 68%. Our expectations of him on Inauguration night were too high. His approval rating back on Jan. 20 was around 80%.
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Scott Bateman3 weeks ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.