On Friday, the BEA released the second revision of first quarter GDP. These are great reports because they provide a good snapshot of the overall economic situation. As such, a closer look at the data is warranted. All charts below are from the St. Louis Federal Reserve and are in chained (inflation-adjusted) 2005 dollars. You can click on all the charts to get a larger chart.Personal consumption expenditures (PCEs) comprise the largest part of GDP. Here is a chart of overall PCEs for the last year.Overall PCEs (which comprise 70.7% of real GDP) have been increasing for the last year and they increased slightly last month.Services comprise the largest percentage of PCEs at 65.4%. They have been increasing for the last year at a consistent rate.Non-durable goods' expenditures -- which represent 22% of PCEs -- have been increasing for the last year as well, although they dropped last month.Durable goods -- which comprise the smallest percentage of PCEs -- increased sharply at the end of last summer thanks to the cash for clunkers program. After dropping the next few months they have rebounded at a solid rate.The next largest percentage of GDP is investment which comprises 12.6% of real GDP.Real gross private domestic investment picked-up strongly in the 4th quarter and moved up in the first quarter as well.Residential fixed investment (which accounts for 21% of investment) dropped in the first quarter, although it had been rising for the preceding two quarters. However, the best way to describe the last year's action is a sideways move.While business investment in real estate (which comprises 20.6% of all investment) has decreased for the last four quarters, investment in equipment and software (which accounts for 56.4% of all investment) has increased strongly over the last two quarters.There is good and bad news in the import/export figures.The bad news is that collectively, the trade balance is again moving in the wrong direction -- that is, the US is net importer.Imports are increasing, which indicates the US is again a net importer, but this also indicates personal consumption expenditures are increasing.And while they are less than imports, the overall pace of increase in exports is also very encouraging. In fact, manufacturing has been a key component of the recovery.Finally, there are federal and state expenditures.Real federal expenditures have actually been moving nearly sideways for the last two quarters, whilereal state consumption expenditures and investment have been decreasing for the last three quarters.The most striking feature of the data is the lack of contribution of growth from government expenditures -- which is caused entirely from the decrease in state and local expenditures. This means growth for the last two quarters is coming almost entirely from the private sector. In addition, the largest part of GDP -- PCEs -- have demonstrated a consistent rate of growth. Additionally, private investment is picking up as are exports. In conclusion, the economy grew for the last three quarters, which is a required development for lowering the unemployment rate.
In conclusion, the economy grew for the last three quarters, which is a required development for lowering the unemployment rate.Excellent analysis, and excellent data.The economy grew -- and not because of government expenditures. This can't be spun as "we're only creating fake growth because Obama spent so much". It will, however, be spun as "See? We don't need no stinking gubmint help. What we need is lower taxes!"Anyway, the GNAA takeaway here is that real growth is happening. And you see it in the consumption numbers. Growth is driven by demand, and unemployment is always a lagging indicator -- even thought we have seen tremendous jobs growth, it will take a little while for the unemployment number to improve.Thanks for the data!
Absolutely! I think this separates the reasonable R's from the wingnuts; my R friends at work love seeing this news and do not begrudge President Obama credit (they also think the spending both Bush & Obama did to stem the carotid artery bleeding was essential and do not cmopare spending levels with those inclusions). The wingnuts will somehow take something negative from this, not give BHO any credit, and generally reveal themselves as unreasonable.I love having honest debate with my R friends (and my D friends who are still incensed by the Gitmo/wiretapping/govt intervention that BHO has not dealt with or specifically increased). Then we can discuss what the actual safe timetable for Iraq withdrawal is, how much more the economy has to grow before State govts feel any lessening of economic pressures, etc.Hopefully the 1 or 2 reasonable R's that post here will enjoy this news & give the President credit.wv: voltio - Harry Potter villain in the Italian translation
I am not even close to being an economist, but it seems to me that there are two major long term problems in dealing with the 'real' economy. The first is switching the import to export ratio - which I would assume means increasing our manufacturing base. The second is a slow decrease in Federal expenditures and a corresponding increase in State expenditures - and I would assume that the main problem that the States are having is that property values have dropped & therefore State revenues have dropped. (This problem compounded of course by high unemployment- which will pick up).So the focus right now, it would seem, would be to get the banks to participate more fully in rewriting mortgages so that we staunch the flow of foreclosed homes, and to continue to make targeted incentives in the manufacturing sector. States may have to bite the bullet and raise taxes in other areas so as to maintain vital services. Overall - kudos to the Obama Administration for turning the economy around.
Reality check, guys.Last quarter's growth was an annualized 3%, barely enough to generate any job growth and not enough to take a whack out of unemployment.There's really nothing here that suggests that an improvement in the growth rate is likely soon. Only half the economy (services and equipment/ software investment) is growing. The rest is stagnant or declining, and that will get worse when the "junk shot" of the stimulus expires at year's end.You can blather on about GNAA all you like, but it's time to wake up and smell the coffee- rapid job growth just ain't in the cards unless growth accelerates, and where is faster growth supposed to come from?
@Brian JenkinsIn the last two months alone, the economy added over a half million jobs. At the current rate, we will add more jobs this year than Bush did in his entire eight years.I know you want to bash Obama just because you want to bash Obama. But he deserves credit for reversing the Republican collapse of the economy.
OK, I give up. What does GNAA stand for? I looked it up in Wikipedia and it gave:1. Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, a national art gallery in Italy2. Great North Air Ambulance, an English medical charity3. Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, an astrometry technique4. Guilford Native American Association, a Native American community associationNone of these seem applicable.
Good News About America.
@Tom:It's a local acronym for "good news about America." I.e., that which is anathema to the 538.com conservative posters who luxuriate obscenely in any unpleasantness inflicted upon their fellow Americans because they believe that greater suffering will better right-wing chances in the next election.
@jtc: I think this separates the reasonable R's from the wingnuts; my R friends at work love seeing this news and do not begrudge President Obama credit (they also think the spending both Bush & Obama did to stem the carotid artery bleeding was essential and do not cmopare spending levels with those inclusions). The wingnuts will somehow take something negative from this, not give BHO any credit, and generally reveal themselves as unreasonable.Quite true. The Republican party is divided against ITSELF nowadays almost as much as it is against the Dems. Here is a really interesting analysis of the schisms in the modern Republican party.Opening paragraph: One way to understand the divisions in the Republican Party is as a clash of regional philosophies. Northeastern conservatism is moderate, accepts the modern welfare state, and dislikes mixing religion with politics. Western conservatism is hawkish, hates government, and embraces individual freedom. Southern conservatism is populist, draws on evangelical Christianity, and often plays upon racial resentments. The big drama of the GOP over the past several decades has been the Eastern view giving way to the Southern one. To see this transformation in a single family, witness the shift from George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush...
What struck me about most of these charts was how there had been a sudden leveling off the growth vectors which has been reflected in the recent spate of jobs numbers which has surprised many in show an acceleration is new claims and a stubbornly high number of increasing claims.Note also that at the Y/X axis intersection, we do not start at zero. This leads to a graphic overemphasis on recent trends which when you pull the lens back show that we have been more or less bouncing along a bottom. As Brian Jenkins pointed out 3% growth is anemic and amounts to an economy treading water. Unfortunately we are far out to sea and will ready need to develop a kick here to get back to shore safely.Of course, the past is prologue and in many ways these numbers can be said to follow a “random walk” to borrow a phrase from the Chartists. The looming collapse of the European Economic Union threatens the world economy in ways that will make Lehman Bros’ failure as a dress rehearsal. Given the complete failure of Obama’s foreign policy that has brought Iran to the brink of nuclear weapons and war with Israel (expect the Israelis to launch their attack bw the US Midterms and the seating of our New Congress) and with N Korea on the verge of war with S Korea and dictators like Chavez and Putin ascendant while our President allows his minions in the State Department to assert immoral equivalence bw the US and the butchers of Peking, the world sees Obama as a weak and ineffective leader of the free world. It is interesting to see that what little net growth there has been has come from the private sector, once more validating the ingenuity and courage of a productive class, that despite living under a Regime so demonstrably hostile to the private sector, who are clearly in his tax crosshairs, still manages to find a way to make lemonade from lemons. Imagine if we had a more traditional sort of President who believed in business and the power of capital and industry to provide jobs and a happy lifestyle to his citizens instead of worrying about ancient, fictive inequalities while focusing so much of his negative energy on his critics in the media and elsewhere?I asked about a week ago for you all to explain what exactly Obama’s economic program is and how, on an empirical basis, it is expected to work. The answers were the usually ad hominem attacks, right out of the Allinsky/Goebbels play book. And you accuse me of being a troll! You have no answers so you deride your critics as “barters” and when they won’t shut up, you threaten them with invidious assaults on their privacy, via internet spying of questionable legality. Please ask for cites if you doubt me.2012. It may seem a long way off, but if we can hold off until the defenestration, we will survive.This is America – we are not victims of History: We make History!petekent01 (on twitter)
petekent01 (twit) saidDarmok and Jalad at Tanagra!Shaka, when the walls fell.
Growth is necessary for improved employment prospects as well as improved federal tax revenue. The OMB projection for the fiscal year is 14.9% of GDP, almost 400 bps from the long-term average. With GDP at 1.3 trillion, that shortfall amounts to $520 billion or 40% of the FY deficit.The stimulus has worked but instead we're to be treated to the Serious People nattering about how harmful deficits are to "the children."wv: derea-where bus drivers tell you to go.
@shrinkers, filistro: no sooner had you pronounced GNAA than did one of the resident nihilists cut and paste some old text to badmouth America.PK: Our "random walk" through the Bush years was nothing but a nightmare. We're all still paying the price of his global incompetence.
filistro, your really interesting Weisberg column didn't get quite so complimentary a reception here when Thers says According to the always sagacious (trans: douchebag) Jacob Weisberg, there exists "a struggle for the soul of the Republican Party." Of course, his take on the article (which is Weisberg just made this Western/Southern shit up. "The GOP is becoming more racist and stupid" remains the essential point.) differs from, say, Lucianne G (you know who I mean and I'm not linking) who claims Weisberg....oh, hell, you know what she's going to say.
Pete, despite your paranoia, nobody really cares what you say. Commenters at this site apparently can (and do) say anything they like. You are certainly not the worst.What you don't seem to understand is that people most dislike your SPAMMING. In case you don't know what "spamming" is, it refers to clogging a site or mailbox with unwanted material.You always post something lengthy on a thread and then copy and paste it to EVERY OTHER THREAD, whether or not your thoughts are germane to the other topics at all. It makes the threads confusing and hard to follow because they all look the same unless the reader scrolls up all the time to check where he is. This is really annoying for those of us who are checking posts on the fly.If you would just pick one thread to post your thought in, and not spam all other threads as well, people might be more disposed to respond to what you say instead of skipping over it impatiently.
Tom... I dislike the haters on our side just as much as I dislike the haters over there on the right.Hatred is such a simplistic thing. It doesn't require thought, analysis, weighing, giving quarter, acknowledging validity, recognizing strength, taking issue with hypocrisy, searching out weakness... so easy to just say, "They're all racist and stupid!"I don't believe hatred wins elections. Analysis followed by action... that's a winner.(Maybe that's why we win more often. We on the left tend to be thinkers, not haters ;-)
GDP GROWTH UNDER GW: It is standard practice to not count the first year of the presidency and to add the year after the president left office (POTUS can't be held accountable for a recession he walked into, or growth he walked into). So counting from 2001 to 2009 - GW averaged - 1.8158. That was while he increased the debt from 51% of GDP to 78% of GDP. 2000 4.139 2001 1.08 2002 1.814 2003 2.49 2004 3.573 2005 3.054 2006 2.673 2007 2.141 2008 0.439 2009 -2.73So when you righties say that 3% GDP is 'anemic' - you might want to consider your guy's track record.
to: shrinkers, Quixote: Thank you
Excellent analysis! I'm glad to see we're headed in a positive direction, at least on this front.
@Juris @shrinkers, filistro: no sooner had you pronounced GNAA than did one of the resident nihilists cut and paste some old text to badmouth America.Stand operating procedure. Having had his talking points shown to be mere nonsense, he posted them anyway. Repeat a meaningless advertising jingle often enough, and it sticks on one's head; that's his goal.PK never produces a post of substance, nor one revealing even a passing familiarity with the real world.
Some further thoughts on money and hatred: (it's not Memorial Day up here, it's business as usual and the markets are up :-)Republicans are terribly vulnerable this year because of their hatred of the President. It's ironic to think these people used to accuse Dems of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome.) Their hatred of Obama is so intense that it may well cost them their once-significant advantage in this election cycle.Every time we see some GNAA... like the slow-but-steady economic progress outlined above by Bonddad.. we see the knee-jerk response typified by our righties here. It is ugly, anti-American, hoping-for-failure stuff. And it will be used against them mercilessly when they try to campaign on being the party of "real Americans" who "love their country."(Trust me, I've seen some of the preliminary messaging, and it's pretty brutal stuff. And it's too late for them to retract now. We have Nexis and You-Tube ;-)Every day, every time they're confronted by any bit of GNAA however small, the Reps are unable to help themselves. And every soundbite or bit of print exposes them as people who hate their president more than they love their country. Now... attacking your opposition on the merits is one thing. It's fair game and SOP. But I think constantly talking down the economy in a time of crisis and just before an election is a a pretty fatal error.
In conclusion, the economy grew for the last three quarters, which is a required development for lowering the unemployment rate.This observation is true, but misleading. It is true that GDP growth is a prerequisite for employment growth, but the required GDP growth is far higher than the US has experienced over the past three quarters. We will need two solid years of 5% plus growth to get the present unemployment percentage back down to where it was prior to 2008. Our current growth is 60% of what is needed and heading down.filistro, I am unsure why a downward revision of the GDP figures qualifies as a GNAA. Indeed, BEA's habit of consistently overestimating GDP to make headlines and then quietly releasing lower revisions later is becoming a disturbing habit.
I would again implore people to not fixate on every datapoint as portending victory or defeat for either the economy or government fiscal policy. I know there's an urge on both sides to treat every release like a score in a baseball game, but economic data is more like an ever-changing mosaic or jigsaw puzzle.That complexity is why there's such a high rate of economic illiteracy in the media and in Washington. That trickles down to the citizens.As such, the numbers addressed in this report are minor components. A cyclical rebound is to be expected. The question is the magnitude and duration of the recovery and whether that can lead to renewed growth.The fact that government spending is having little effect is unsurprising. Any real recovery must eminate from the private sector. Thus far, the recovery looks tepid, and the leading indicators show little persistance. Had the charts above shown longer duration, it would be apparent how tame the recovery is, but that is already intuitively obvious for anyone living in the real world.Yeah, there is plenty of reason to worry about Obama fiscal policy. Keynesian stimulus at best has only short-run success; longer-term it diverts money from the private sector, inhibiting growth. Given the policies in place and contemplated, there is little reason to believe the private sector can be anything but hurt by Obama policies and that the economy has little to drive it beyond cyclical rebound.
Y'all see Bart and Rudy just above? They simply can't help themselves.It's a real head-shaker. Watching the Republican party nowadays really is like witnessing a slow-motion train wreck. As they say... horrible, tragic... but fascinating.
Ruday, that is simply not true. It's not "focussing on one data point" it's a very real set of sustained improvements in most--not all--charts.True, there is a high degree of economic illiteracy in the country, as exemplified by right-wing posts who deny unemployment figures are both lagging indicators and may go up even when more jobs are created if there was a cataclysmic number of people who stopped looking for work--and because things are turning around, have begun looking for work again. Also exemplified by demand for more and more good news rather than accepting, say, 3 quarters of growth that (see above post) beat the last 8 years handily. And by bleating talking points re: the extraordinary actions taken in an extraordinary situation President Obama found himself in due mainly to 8 years of almost unchecked Republican doctrine in every manner.The numbers are anything but "minor components" at it is specifically pointed out why, which ones, and what percentages.Also the "govt spending is having little effect" is a complete misinterpretation; in fact, previous govt spending kept this from being a Great Depression II (and here I give BOTH Bush & Obama credit--wish you could do the same). The point of the article was that, while the bleeding was stopped by the infusion of govt funding, it is the private sector rebounding that is bringing the entirety up. Govt spending is still needed to offset the desperate situations most states find themselves in, which the chart clearly shows brings down the total greatly, much as the dislike of Obama in the South brings down his national figures, disguising the fact that he's very close to the most popular President we've had in everywhere but the deepest, brightest red strongholds (excluding the temporary bounce from 9/11 whichshould have been a crater, as Bush had been warned and the failure happened well into his Preidency, but somehow turned into a plus--which he then squandered until he left a laughingstock at best. arguably a war criminal at worst). Three striaght quarters of growth; more jobs created in less than a year than Bush did in 8. This is not "short run success"--it is a trendline that has gone on for a long, steady time now as the charts prove.I appreciate your responding with points that can be discussed, disagreed with, and possibly defended. However, as most of what you posted is demonstrably untrue, I would suggest you try again with some cogent accurate points based not he article.Pleasure having a civil discourse. Thank you.wv: allymat - what an alley cat sleeps on (or C. Flockhart's futon)
@filistroAgreed. Excellent examples. And as their predictions of economic decline under Obama continue to be confounded, they invent reasons why what's happening should not be seen as happening. Their disconnect for the Real World (tm) becomes increasingly obvious, as is their desperation for the recovery to not be real. This anti-American spirit will be seen for what it is, and the predicted tsunami will become a mere ripple.And Bart will continue to not have the honesty or honor to admit we have a wager. He has already attempted to weasel out, as he has with other wagers that people have taken him up on. Since he puts no value on his own words and his own arguments, it's unclear why h imagines anyone else should.
Quixote wrote:"Shaka, when the walls fell."LOL! I salute you, sir.
@shrinkers: The idea of repeating things making them true was wonderfully addressed in a recent Colbert episode with Jake Tapper.Watch and enjoy.
@Quixote:Temba, at rest. Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.
pk wrote:"As Brian Jenkins pointed out 3% growth is anemic and amounts to an economy treading water"Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 3% roughly the average long term growth rate since 1980 (aka since Reagan)?
Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.Oh, c'mon... you guys just liked Ashley Judd in spandex!
@JurisThanks for that link! Brilliant!
jtc007 said...Also exemplified by demand for more and more good news rather than accepting, say, 3 quarters of growth that (see above post) beat the last 8 years handily.Please. When GDP growth gets to the 6.9% in 3Q 2003 after the Bush tax cuts nevertheless the 5.9% to 9.3% in the year and a half after the Reagan tax reforms, you get back to me and we can talk about real recovery rate GDP growth and concurrent real employment growth.Meanwhile, while I will be thankful that the economy is no longer contracting, I will hardly be celebrating its current stagnation as some sort of GNAA.Also the "govt spending is having little effect" is a complete misinterpretation; in fact, previous govt spending kept this from being a Great Depression II (and here I give BOTH Bush & Obama credit--wish you could do the same).Speaking of bleating out talking points. You are free to connect any item of the past year's surge in government spending over the past year and change to an item of growth in the private economy over the past 2Q. There is none at all. Nada, zip, zilch. We have pissed away nearly three trillion dollars in borrowing plus interest for no discernible benefit to anyone apart from the Chinese debt holders while creating temporary make work for government employees and a handful of make work green jobs.
filistro wrote:"it reminds me of the small but dangerous group on our side who kept talking down the Iraq surge and hoping for it to fail"Insightful point."If they had been allowed free rein like the Economy Doomers to vent their negativity all over the place, it would probably have been fatal."In terms of the "big picture", the complete collapse of Republican message discipline over the past two months is a major development.We now see, for perhaps the first time in half a century, what Republicans would sound like if they no longer were handed a script to read from.
Speaking of bleating out talking points. You first.Bush and Reagan were both examples of how massive government spending and borrowing can artificially inflate the GDP - especially when the spending is on war toys rather than infrastructure or consumer goods, while simultaneously gutting the middle class and transferring wealth to the top 3%. The result of that absurd policy was the global collapse of '08. I wouldn't be so quick to offer these idiots and thieves as examples of desirably economic policy. And if you are going to use these guys as people to be emulated, then you must also advise us to double or tripe the Federal debt -- as both of them did. It was their profligate overspending which produced the massive bubble. Real and sustainable growth happened under Clinton. Republicans are hell on the economy.But why should we take your arguments seriously when you refuse to stand behind your own promises and commitments? If you don't put any faith in your words, why should anyone else?
filistro wrote:"Oh, c'mon... you guys just liked Ashley Judd in spandex!"Either way, it was pretty funny: concise, witty, and comprehensive.It reminds of the concept of "the wingularity".
@Todd Dugdale We now see, for perhaps the first time in half a century, what Republicans would sound like if they no longer were handed a script to read from.I think it's sheer panic on their part. The normal Republican strategy of scorched-earth attack didn't work in '06 or '08. They were hoping the insanity of the Teabag Summer of '09 would do the trick -- but somehow, like the Energizer Bunny, Obama and the Democrats took a lickin' and kept on tickin', got HCR passed, and continue to rack up a steady stream of legislative victories. So the Frankenstein Teabag Monster is now turning against its creator. It has realized, you see, that the Republicans are not only incompetent (they can't stop the calm and sure 11-dimensional chess of Our President) but dishonest (the predictions of economic disaster under Obama, and the assurances that we'd see forced re-education camps, rampant socialism, etc, etc, -- hasn't happened). The Teapers are primarying out Republicans, and running nutbat candidates like Rand Paul who threaten to turn reliable Republican seats over to the Dems (NY-23?). The R's have no idea what to do now, and they have no leader and no strategy, and the only thing they know is how to scare people. But for once, it is they themselves who are scared, for their vision of taking Obama down has turned against them. The narrative of an enthused Republican voting block is fracturing. Not only will they fail to achieve the huge pickups they'd been dreaming about, they may actually be in trouble in a lot of places. After their confidant predictions of a vast Teabagger Tsunami of biblical proportions! they are now in danger of merely looking (at best) silly -- and, at worst, anti-American.In short, America has started to see the modern Republican Party for what it is.Who was it that said, "If you don't stop lying about me, I'll have to tell the truth about you"? The Republicans should have stopped with the lies.
@filistro:Actually, all of TNG reminded me of a Senator Al Franken-authored sketch on the old Saturday Night Live that Raquel Welch famously refused to perform in.
@Milord Dugdale:Thanks for the Balloon Juice link. Made my day.
JTC, you're making strawman arguments, including "quotes" that I did not make. Nothing I said is demonstrably not true. Find some of those same charts with longer term data ranges. Then you'll see how tepid the rebound is. Sustained is not defined as a couple quarters off the bottom. The charts, by not showing a longer term, are misleading to the casual observer. It is barely putting a dent into losses during the downturn.You persist in the inaccurate nostrums about Bush job growth. I think you know better. During the Bush recovery the 2003 tax cuts, job growth was robust until the downturn led by the financial crisis, and far more robust than the current recovery. Your Point-A-to-Point-B analysis in deliberately misleading, pretending that there was no job growth while Bush was president. Starting from the time the 2003 tax cuts were enacted in mid-2003, the economy added 8.2 million jobs through the end of 2007, an average of over 150K per month. That included 51 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS that the economy added jobs in that post-tax-cut period. Perhapsthis recovery can do the same, but it is doubtful given the condition of the leading indicators and the robbing of funds from the private sector in favor of government handouts that create no product or foundation for growth.Obama policies appear ineffectual and are unquestionably anti-business, providing no reason to expect robust private sector growth. That is the only growth that matters. Your assertion that the stimulus spending headed off the next depression is highly questionable -- there's no evidence to support that. If anything, it has served to truncate cyclical rebound because that money was taken out of the private sector. The TARP money helped stablize the underpinnings of the fiancial system, at greater effect and far less expense.I'm all for evidence-based analysis, not partisan cheerleading. Dispassionate economic analysis is what I engage in. I'm OK with disagreement, but not distortion of history or conjecture driven by partisan parsing of facts.
shrinkers said...Bush and Reagan were both examples of how massive government spending and borrowing can artificially inflate the GDP - especially when the spending is on war toys rather than infrastructure or consumer goods, while simultaneously gutting the middle class and transferring wealth to the top 3%.Perhaps the most obscene economic theory ever advanced is that war spending increases national wealth. War spending is a 100% loss to the economy because the products are destroyed in fighting the war and the temporary employment of folks in the military during a war exchanges a pay check for the most dangerous work environment available. The only thing that could make your argument worse is that you are advancing it on Memorial Day.In any case, Reagan recovery GDP growth of between 5-9% far outstripped the increase in defense spending as a percentage of GDP.The vast majority of Bush 43's spending came on the domestic side of the ledger in 2001 and 2002 during a period of mediocre economic performance much like today. The war spending was less than 1% of GDP. The recovery level growth did not come until after the marginal tax cuts in summer 2003.
The Three Laws of Republicans.
Oh, yeah, the Krupps really suffered with all that European war stuff going on.
@ BartPerhaps the most obscene economic theory ever advanced is that war spending increases national wealth. I couldn't agree more.
As "baloney Bart" has had his main point already addressed, I'll just cover the talking point meme he ended with--the good ol' "govt wasted money with no benefit" although the exception of Chinese workers was a nice touch; wonder if that came from Limbaugh or Beck?Even had we no trail to already prove it beyond reasonable doubt, Bart demonstrated he's in the "irrational" group by not crediting the triage govt spending needed with stopping the runaway job loss/worldwide economic meltdown, thanks to both W & BHO. Sometimes extraordinary measures are needed. The fact that there is an irrational subset of R's who refuse to acknowledge this was one of those times and credit both Presidents with doing the right thing to jointly rescue the economy so messed up by, essentially, the policies of their subset proves that there are some R's worth discussing things with--e.g., Rudy, who had refutable points but made the best case fo rthem possible--vs people who cannot or will not understand the reality of what we were in, something both W & BHO & any reasonable person on either side, including a fair number of people/places, e.g., the Heritage Foundation, that cannot in any way be called "left" "liberal" etc.Bart has placed himself squarely in the latter, but as we'd all known he'd been there for some time, it wasn't a surprise.3% avg since Reagan.Post above detailing W's #'s.Maybe if Bart could read, his business wouldn't be struggling as much. But someone had to be the worst of his class, and until someone else shows any sort of claim to it, he has the title.wv: gatcha - self-explanitory
Bart Said: Please. When GDP growth gets to the 6.9% in 3Q 2003 after the Bush tax cuts nevertheless the 5.9% to 9.3% in the year and a half after the Reagan tax reforms, you get back to me and we can talk about real recovery rate GDP growth and concurrent real employment growth. Again year by year GDP Growth: 2000 4.139 2001 1.08 2002 1.814 2003 2.49 2004 3.573 2005 3.054 2006 2.673 2007 2.141 2008 0.439 2009 -2.73Please show me in these figures ONE example of the sustained 5% GDP that you insist that Obama must somehow miraculously come up with. Secondly - show me one year in which Bush grew GDP by 5.73% - as Obama did between 2009 and thus far in 2010. Recall, that the decline in GDP LEFT by YOUR GUY - was also quite a bit better than it would have been without the stimulus. Also recall that the bush Tax Cuts have left us SO FAR with a 1.35 trillion dollar DEBT according to the Heritage Foundation .
Read Full Article »