Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Socio

Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of

33 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Socio

http://www.cnsnews.c...-gdp-growth-any

Even if you leave out the first quarter of 2009—when the recession that started in December 2007 was still ongoing--President Barack Obama has presided over the lowest average first-quarter GDP growth of any president who has served since 1947, which is the earliest year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis has calculated quarterly GDP growth.

In all first quarters since 1947, the real annual rate of growth of GDP has averaged 4.0 percent.

In the seven first quarters during Obama’s presidency, it has declined by an average of -0.43 percent. And if you leave out the first quarter of 2009 and look only at the first quarters of the six years since the recession ended, it has averaged only 0.4 percent.

A 0.4% GDP growth yet we are told by Obama and the MSM the recession is over, the economy is booming and we have had nothing but positive job growth numbers being reported, how does that work exactly?

Edited by Socio
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

well, not quite. The USA has...(etc). I can't remember Mr. Obama being the USA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

http://www.cnsnews.c...-gdp-growth-any

A 0.4% GDP growth yet we are told by Obama and the MSM the recession is over, the economy is booming and we have had nothing but positive job growth numbers being reported, how does that work exactly?

Compared to 5 or 6 years ago the economy is booming. People tend to forget that economic cycles take time to dissipate in their effect. The recession bought about by events that happened either before Obama's administration took office or that were out of the govt's direct control can't just go away in a year or two if the growth that is brought about is sustainable. Sure, you could put into effect short-term fixes to provide the appearance of 'high growth', but those only perpetuate a boom and bust cycle. Smaller and sustainable growth is best for the economy overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

http://www.cnsnews.c...-gdp-growth-any

A 0.4% GDP growth yet we are told by Obama and the MSM the recession is over, the economy is booming and we have had nothing but positive job growth numbers being reported, how does that work exactly?

Hadn't you heard? Obama is the magic man! If HE says it then it MUST be true! Just ask the sycophants media, they'll tell you.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

As bad as that looks, its probably far worse. Government always cooks the books best they can. Ive heard several people say we are in the negative.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

For those of you who are interested in the topic of economic growth and its causes, this is from the World Bank.

http://www.worldbank...nomic-prospects

And here's a link to an international GDP table.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/forecast/gdp-annual-growth-rate

And how about the rascals that got us into this situation in the first place? I'd sure like to see the causes addressed, lest history repeats itself yet again.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

China is at its lowest since the recession too. http://www.wsj.com/a...at-7-1429064535

Of course 7% growth is still nothing to sneeze at.

7% in itself does not say much, if one earns 7 cents more having earned a buck before that is also 7%...the other one who earned 7 bucks more having earned 100 before also has 7% more... and its much easier to earn 7 cents more than 7 bucks....

What happened here is that because of the durn Greeks the Euro went down, the dollar went up and most Europeans are doing more business... at the cost of the US of A and Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Very true. Don't forget though that China is projected to (some argue that it already has) pass the US as the worlds largest economy. So that 7% means a lot more than say 7% in Fiji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Hadn't you heard? Obama is the magic man! If HE says it then it MUST be true! Just ask the sycophants media, they'll tell you.

Uh, isn't CSNews a media outlet? Are we going to pick & choose what we consider to be reliable media outlets based on whether it's views coincide with ours? Are we just gonna accept whatever is said at face value, especially about a very complicated subject like economics, without doing any of our own research or background reading because we like or agree with what's presented? Darn it, we all have a responsibility to inform ourselves in the best ways possible in order to reached an informed conclusion or decision. And it's real clear CSNews is a biased source. Is that we want, folks? Someone telling us only a part of the story, because that small part moves their agenda forward? Aaargh!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

As bad as that looks, its probably far worse. Government always cooks the books best they can. Ive heard several people say we are in the negative.

yup.... the only stat up is CON-fidence the Fed and the american military will do anything to preserve benjamin franklins circulating worldwide. Now if you excuse me I'm going to join those down the block for the weekly all you can eat and drink barbeque at the local drug dealing, pedophile, mass murderers' house............ [sarcasm]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Uh, isn't CSNews a media outlet? Are we going to pick & choose what we consider to be reliable media outlets based on whether it's views coincide with ours? Are we just gonna accept whatever is said at face value, especially about a very complicated subject like economics, without doing any of our own research or background reading because we like or agree with what's presented? Darn it, we all have a responsibility to inform ourselves in the best ways possible in order to reached an informed conclusion or decision. And it's real clear CSNews is a biased source. Is that we want, folks? Someone telling us only a part of the story, because that small part moves their agenda forward? Aaargh!

I don't think there is such a thing as a unbiased news source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

When something as context-sensitive as GDP starts getting tossed around casually without any defined parameters, you need to be really skeptical as to the purpose of the argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Obama has the GDP? If any of you posters here think the GDP comes from the President, you deserve who you vote for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

I don't think there is such a thing as a unbiased news source.

OK, how about non-news sources, like the sites I posted links to? The information is presented in a non-biased way, I believe, but it doesn't tell us what we should think about it, and it's not presented in a political way. But why go to an obviously biased source in the first place if one is wanting to inform one's self, without ever looking for more information that would give a fuller, clearer picture? As an article connecting Obama with the GDP, the story is weak and unconvincing, at least from a critical thinking perspective. And if we can't or won't engage in critical thinking, how can we make the kinds of decisions that need to be made to help determine a better future?

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Obama has the GDP? If any of you posters here think the GDP comes from the President, you deserve who you vote for.

Hey, are you saying maybe he's not responsible for that stale bag of Cheetos I bought the other day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Hey, are you saying maybe he's not responsible for that stale bag of Cheetos I bought the other day?

For all I know, the Obama White House is betting on Frito Lay like they bet on GM, Solyndra and Raytheon.

Most likely he's not responsible for your stale bag of Cheetos, but he is responsible for that bomb, and that bomb killing innocent men women and children. But nobody questions that. Not the people who can't stop complaining about him, and not you either.

We don't seem to have a problem with the control over our economy and our money the govt has, we bake whatever it does right into the GDP cake by default, D and R alike. Then use the numbers as a point of argument in political discussions. We wind up foolishly getting on one side of this ridiculous OP title, or the other. People need to be clobbered for that, on both sides of the net. Wait, that's why I'm here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Hey, are you saying maybe he's not responsible for that stale bag of Cheetos I bought the other day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sam

At least we are seeing some growth. It would be bad if it was not growing at all. If the economy stalled or capped, we would have been in big trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

At least we are seeing some growth. It would be bad if it was not growing at all. If the economy stalled or capped, we would have been in big trouble.

No worries in the new Keynesian economy. We'll just have QE4, bailouts, more wars, massive money printing and other desperate govt maneuvers, hallmarks of a dying empire struggling for control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

OK, how about non-news sources, like the sites I posted links to? The information is presented in a non-biased way, I believe, but it doesn't tell us what we should think about it, and it's not presented in a political way. But why go to an obviously biased source in the first place if one is wanting to inform one's self, without ever looking for more information that would give a fuller, clearer picture? As an article connecting Obama with the GDP, the story is weak and unconvincing, at least from a critical thinking perspective. And if we can't or won't engage in critical thinking, how can we make the kinds of decisions that need to be made to help determine a better future?

If Obama was a much better President, the GDP would be a lot lower. The banks would be dead instead of zombies at the newfound mercy of the central bank's tits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

For all I know, the Obama White House is betting on Frito Lay like they bet on GM, Solyndra and Raytheon.

Most likely he's not responsible for your stale bag of Cheetos, but he is responsible for that bomb, and that bomb killing innocent men women and children. But nobody questions that. Not the people who can't stop complaining about him, and not you either.

We don't seem to have a problem with the control over our economy and our money the govt has, we bake whatever it does right into the GDP cake by default, D and R alike. Then use the numbers as a point of argument in political discussions. We wind up foolishly getting on one side of this ridiculous OP title, or the other. People need to be clobbered for that, on both sides of the net. Wait, that's why I'm here!

There's a lot of thing I question.Yam, just like everyone else. That I don't always do so on these posts doesn't mean I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

There's a lot of thing I question.Yam, just like everyone else. That I don't always do so on these posts doesn't mean I don't.

I understand, but question the D's for me in a post anyways, if you do it in your head already, why not?. Explain to me how their horrid policies are vote-worthy.

As far as what's posted here, D's mostly avoid confrontation and remain quietly loyal to their D politicians anyway. Sure there's a few ninjadudes out there, yet R's virulently defend their R representatives in Washington like the world is going to end without them. While both parties have horrible ideas and even worse policies, R's have become more statist than D's based on the urgency, fear and hatred on display by the right wing.

Obama is worse than Bush in some ways and better in others. Sure he spends a lot more money but I don't think anyone ever expected Obama to veto an unbalanced budget that came across his desk. That's been obvious for eight years now and people blame him for the spending when it's the peoples' fault for allowing it. Obama promised to spend enormous loads of money before he got elected in 2008 if anyone bothered to count the costs, If all his 2007 promises were to come true, it was trillions of dollars of excessive arbitrary spending that we weren't spending money on yet. And we've had those trillions of dollars spent and he hasn't kept half his promises. How did Obama get the audacity to feel entitled to so much power over so many issues? How did Obama voters get so complicit to let him get away with it?

This executive's abuse of power since W. Bush is palpable. A President's job isn't to be "the decider" other than waging wars declared by Congress or vetoing bills written by Congress, it's to administer the laws passed by Congress under this Constitution. Obama has done a real number on us. He's turned out to be the greatest practitioner of W's most gigantic new govt creations. There's no hope or change or reason to still have faith in that. For D people who don't think too much about it (and I think there are far more of those people than people who ask a lot of questions) and like their President (because he's smart, tall, black, articulate, father, handsome, whatever) and are now getting ready to become closet Hillary supporters - they like these Kings and Queens lording over us like this. The R chorus line has been that Obama isn't a strong enough leader, which goes to show how insane they are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

You've thrown out a whole lot of generalizations, Yam, and opinions, without ever once referring to even one of the substantial reasons why people voted for Obama and not the other guy. It has to do with things like national healthcare, women's reproductive issues, getting us out of the Middle East, among other things. You should know this as well as I do. Were all campaign promises realized? No, but they never are. Why the need, though, to denigrate people because of their politics? When we begin to dehumanize people we put ourselves on what can only be a downhill slope that can have no positive outcome, and can cause only harm, most importantly to one's self. I don't need to defend my politics, and if someone wants to make assumptions about me or my motives or my thinking, and operate as if those assumptions were true, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.