Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate

[VaYank5150]

There are plenty of hacks to go around. Ever heard of "death panels"? How about "WMD"?

And have I ever defended either of those?

No I haven't.

Sorry, SP.....just making a general statement at this point. It is obvious you and I will not find middle ground on our improving economic picture.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much of that growth was fueled by easy access to the Capital Markets, you know, where those greedy bankers make money for putting companies together with money?

 

[antagon]

bankers dont put companies together, crufrank.

 

[editec]

Of course it's good news that some economic indicators are telling us the overall economy is recovering.

But down here in the trenches where the average American lives, things are NOT getting appreciably better.

And FWIW, I dont' expect them to get much better in 2010 for the average working stiff.

 

[boedicca]

You're right. It's THE JOBS.

Note how the GDP growth during the recovery after the early 80s recession was much stronger than the current:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early-80s_recession.jpg


The economy was growing over twice as fast back then due to significant tax cuts, which led to job creation. Contrast that with the growth dampening policies of expanded government and increased taxes.

Unemployment is going to stay high. I fear our government may have transformed structural unemployment to be permanently above 8%.

 

[antagon]

You're right. It's THE JOBS.

Note how the GDP growth during the recovery after the early 80s recession was much stronger than the current:

File:Early-80s recession.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The economy was growing over twice as fast back then due to significant tax cuts, which led to job creation. Contrast that with the growth dampening policies of expanded government and increased taxes.

Unemployment is going to stay high. I fear our government may have transformed structural unemployment to be permanently above 8%.

wont you say the recessions in the early eighties were some of the most stubborn with respect to jobs? this was when 'jobless recovery' was coined. supply-side stimulus is slow to produce jobs, because demand is the only basis that employers succumb to and finally hire.

your lil chart shows a triple-dip! c'mon.

 

[rightwinger]

You're right. It's THE JOBS.

Note how the GDP growth during the recovery after the early 80s recession was much stronger than the current:

File:Early-80s recession.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The economy was growing over twice as fast back then due to significant tax cuts, which led to job creation. Contrast that with the growth dampening policies of expanded government and increased taxes.

Unemployment is going to stay high. I fear our government may have transformed structural unemployment to be permanently above 8%.

Interesting graph...

How does it account for the fact that we had a massive ressession despite the Bush tax cuts? How does it account for the net loss of jobs during the Bush administration?

Does is show the part where the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the richest 5% of Americans?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

bankers dont put companies together, crufrank.

Start simple and maybe in a few years we can have a conversation

Reading Rainbow Resources | GPN Educational Media

 

[skookerasbil]

GDP is up for three consecutive quarters signaling the end of the recession. This was registered as the worst recession in 70 years and it is encouraging that it has recovered as quickly as it has.

Jobs, which always lag other indicators are showing signs of a turnaround also

How can anyone be disappointed with this?

fAiL..........down over 2% this past quarter. While most economists predict growth in the 3-4% range for the rest of 2010, job growth to remain static and given the coming soaring toxes of 2011, GDP expected to fall off the face of the earth!!

 

[boedicca]

You're right. It's THE JOBS.

Note how the GDP growth during the recovery after the early 80s recession was much stronger than the current:

File:Early-80s recession.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The economy was growing over twice as fast back then due to significant tax cuts, which led to job creation. Contrast that with the growth dampening policies of expanded government and increased taxes.

Unemployment is going to stay high. I fear our government may have transformed structural unemployment to be permanently above 8%.

wont you say the recessions in the early eighties were some of the most stubborn with respect to jobs? this was when 'jobless recovery' was coined. supply-side stimulus is slow to produce jobs, because demand is the only basis that employers succumb to and finally hire.

your lil chart shows a triple-dip! c'mon.

Most of the pain occurred before the Economic Recover Act (signed in August 1981). It takes a bit of time for the effects of lower taxes to roll through the economy. The relevant period is the bottoming in Q3 1982 vs. the bottom of this recession. Compare the growth rates in 1983 to what we see now.

It's likely we'll see another dip next year when the Bush tax cuts expire and the Obama increases provide a double punch to the economy's gut. Investors are pulling forward income into this year in order to avoid the tax hit. Once that activity is gone, boom. Down we go.

 

[boedicca]

Interesting graph...

How does it account for the fact that we had a massive ressession despite the Bush tax cuts? How does it account for the net loss of jobs during the Bush administration?

Does is show the part where the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the richest 5% of Americans?

Because SPENDING continued unabated - and the asset bubble caused by easy money policies burst.

The wealth redistribution class warfare nonsense ignores the massive job creation that benefited lower income levels. Who cares if someone else is getting richer if one has a job and one's own life has improved? Your "Pea Green With Envy" worldview just results in lower standards of living for the poor and middle class.

 

[Terral]

Hi Yank:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama acclaimed a government report on Friday that showed the economy expanded at a 3.2 percent rate in the first quarter, saying it was an "important milepost on the road to recovery."

Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

Good news for a change.

Bullony! These numbers are skewed by the Govt Stimulus, which is money borrowed from our children and grandchildren that can never be paid back in a billion years. Eventually the borrowed money is going to dry up and the National Debt is already more than 100 Trillion Dollars (story). The real story can be seen from this short video clip:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znK6qvzh2gY&playnext_from=TL&videos=_Vln9ZItk5Q&feature=sub]Obama's Recovery = Rise In Tent Sales ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[boedicca]

A country, just like an individual, cannot borrow its way out of debt.

Just sayin'.

 

[Flopper]

You're right. It's THE JOBS.

Note how the GDP growth during the recovery after the early 80s recession was much stronger than the current:

File:Early-80s recession.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The economy was growing over twice as fast back then due to significant tax cuts, which led to job creation. Contrast that with the growth dampening policies of expanded government and increased taxes.

Unemployment is going to stay high. I fear our government may have transformed structural unemployment to be permanently above 8%.

This recession does not compare well the the 81-82 recession. It was much more serve with causes rooted in our financial infrastructure. The 81-82 recession was brought on by hight interest rates due to inflation brought on by an international oil crisis.

 

[boedicca]

If it's more severe, then what Obama is doing is making it even worse.

 

[antagon]

Interesting graph...

How does it account for the fact that we had a massive ressession despite the Bush tax cuts? How does it account for the net loss of jobs during the Bush administration?

Does is show the part where the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the richest 5% of Americans?

Because SPENDING continued unabated - and the asset bubble caused by easy money policies burst.

The wealth redistribution class warfare nonsense ignores the massive job creation that benefited lower income levels. Who cares if someone else is getting richer if one has a job and one's own life has improved? Your "Pea Green With Envy" worldview just results in lower standards of living for the poor and middle class.

your 'massive job creation' in the 80s myth cracks me up, boedicca. about the only thing we've got in common with the 80s right now is how many folks are falling off the unemployment stat sheet at the wrong end. back then, unemployment had to be reconfigured to put it in a better light, sound familliar? the US economy permanently lost some employment back then; we've had that happen again.

 

[boedicca]

When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. It was 7.3% at the end of his first term, falling from a peak of 10.8%. (Back then, the methodology used to calculate unemployment included more people than the current version of U3.)

It's highly doubtful that Obama's policies will cause a 3.5 point drop in unemployment by the end of his first term - unless, of course, millions more long term unemployed drop out of the labor force altogether.

Another way to look at this is, at the beginning of Reagan's terms, there were 100M Employed in the U.S. When he left office, this figure stood at 116.7M. A net increase of 16.7M jobs were created during his eight years in office.

When Obama was inaugurated, 142M people were employed; that amount decreased by 3M by the end of March 2010 when 139M were employed. Over the equivalent amount of time during Reagan's first term, the number employed was slightly down (a net decrease of <300K).

Obama's policies are worsening the situation. Reagan's stabilized it, and then established an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. Note how Obama's team is even now talking down expectations for job recovery and spreading a meme that it will take a long time for unemployment to be significantly reduced.

Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[antagon]

When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. It was 7.3% at the end of his first term, falling from a peak of 10.8%. (Back then, the methodology used to calculate unemployment included more people than the current version of U3.)

It's highly doubtful that Obama's policies will cause a 3.5 point drop in unemployment by the end of his first term - unless, of course, millions more long term unemployed drop out of the labor force altogether.

Another way to look at this is, at the beginning of Reagan's terms, there were 100M Employed in the U.S. When he left office, this figure stood at 116.7M. A net increase of 16.7M jobs were created during his eight years in office.

When Obama was inaugurated, 142M people were employed; that amount decreased by 3M by the end of March 2010 when 139M were employed. Over the equivalent amount of time during Reagan's first term, the number employed was slightly down (a net decrease of <300K).

Obama's policies are worsening the situation. Reagan's stabilized it, and then established an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. Note how Obama's team is even now talking down expectations for job recovery and spreading a meme that it will take a long time for unemployment to be significantly reduced.

Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

reagan's stats also include large numbers of long-term unemployed being excluded from the unemployment roles, then factored back in as new employs when/if they returned. that is not new smoke nor mirrors. looking at the reagan recovery specifically, employment stubbornly lagged behind other indicators. reaganomics had many merits, however, there's thin ice supporting strong job creation early in any reagan expansion.

the obama approach is different than reagan's in some ways. while income tax rates are considerably lower than they were in the early 80's, there's no room or intent to lop them any lower. the opposite is actually indicated, however, that didn't hamper an employment-rich expansion under clinton. writing off obama's policies doesn't indicate that you've considered their aim. heavy-handed supply-side economics is not the only approach to running an economy, and its not without its many flaws, either.

i think america's credit dependency is really showing itself at this point. my clientele has shifted to cash-holders at the upper and lower extremes of the income spread, where credit card deals from the middle class paid the bills during the boom. institutional deals are all from the government at the moment, specifically the millitary, whereas homebuilders were tendiring the most in '05, '06. that's just a narrow perspective, but some others echo it at the chamber of commerce. the middle class needs to find a medium of cash and credit where they relied entirely on credit before. i think that is the key to shift gears on the recovery.

obama and his boys are right to backtrack on their job optimism. 8%, peak, anyone?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Still it amazes me how we have nearly half a million new unemployment claims every week yet the unemployment numbers don't change. Must be some kind of new math.

 

[ihopehefails]

Most of this is government spending or bounce because when you double the spending and sink as low as we did then their is bound to be some kind of bounce. Its good news in some ways in that we aain't losing a million jobs a month like we were when Obama first got in office but it still sucks out there.