Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of

[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 May 30, 2015 by Socio

[questionmark]

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

[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.

[+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.

[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.

[Gromdor]

China is at its lowest since the recession too. http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-first-quarter-growth-slowest-in-six-years-at-7-1429064535

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

[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 May 31, 2015 by Beany

[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.

[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.

[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!

[.ZZ.]

The economy slow down was because of this unexpected phenomenon called "Winter", certainly not anyone in the White House.

Just ask the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/upshot/shrinking-economy-no-but-its-not-surging-either.html?ref=economy&abt=0002&abg=1

[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]

[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.

[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.

[Yamato]

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

[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 June 1, 2015 by Beany

[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?

[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!

[Imaginarynumber1]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.