Economy Dies in 4th Quarter -- Annual Rate of 0.1% GDP

[CowboyBob]

Ford, GM, Chrysler sales advance on sharp rise in car, crossover deliveries

http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...#ixzz2Jf9xqhlg

Ford Motor Co., General Motors and Chrysler Group posted double-digit sales increases in January, signaling the industry may be starting 2013 on a stronger note than expected. Other automakers will release January sales results later today, with Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. expected to post substantial gains.

Some news to counter the gloomy gus.

[CowboyBob]

Dow climbs above 14,000

The Dow Jones industrial average climbed above 14,000 for the first time since the Great Recession. The index rose as high as 14,000.97 in early trading. The index last traded above 14,000 in October 2007.

Damn, the Obama economy is looking pretty good, Springer! You can thank your (re-elected) President for saving the country from the Bush depression.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...01&id=16070897

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Jack 3 basic rebuttals have been thrown your way.

1) A lot of the downturn was over the uncertainty of what was happening with the "fiscal cliff", which occurred because Republicans utterly refused to come to the table at all until the very last second.

2) A lot of the industries and companies losing traction are doing so because of wider market changes such as the move into e-commerce and mismanagement, and have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama does.

3) Cutting Federal spending, which Republicans WANT, is going to result in short-term dips to economic activity.

These three things are all pretty much core to what you were trying to say in your original post.

[Text: Removed]

[Jack Springer]

Obama oversold the recovery -- the red is actual unemployment.



At the current rate of job growth it will take until 2025 to reach were we were before the recession started.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you guys will put a good spin on that -- but deep down you know it's not good.



http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/jan...-jobs-anymore/

[xbuzzerx]

Obama oversold the recovery -- the red is actual unemployment.



At the current rate of job growth it will take until 2025 to reach were we were before the recession started.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you guys will put a good spin on that -- but deep down you know it's not good.



http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/jan...-jobs-anymore/

Jack, yes, job recovery takes time.

All you said is he "oversold" the recovery. To me that means very little because Republicans have criticized everything about Obama from the false interpretation that he promised an instant recovery. If you listened to any of his speeches, even his pre-election campaign speeches, he said that this would take years and be a lot of hard work. He never promised instant recovery.

If you believe he has somehow done something that has 'hurt' recovery, say how exactly. But realize that we're going to take it within the context that the financial collapse in the first place followed up 8 years of Republicans getting to do anything they wanted with the leadership of this country.

[chrisrobin]

.
Bad News:

The Dow exceeded 14,000 today - highest in the last five years... before Bush and Paulson torpedoed the economy. When Barry took office in 2009, it was around 6,500. It's like golf - the lower score the better. Right?

[opinterph]

Obama oversold the recovery -- the red is actual unemployment.

[IMG]http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/020113romerbernsteinJan20132-600x348.jpg[/IMG]

I think what the president stands behind is the policies that he is implementing, the policies that he is advocating. That's what's important. ^*

The blog to which you linked was published by James Pethokoukis. Back in 2008 he published “a few pieces of advice” for then-presidential candidate, John McCain, which included:

He could trot out that famous John Maynard Keynes line, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” The end of cheap oil is one huge factual change. And McCain could set the stage, as someone recently suggested, by visiting ANWR with Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin.

Ten weeks later, Senator McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. So, Mr. Pethokoukis acknowledged that sometimes facts change and it is therefore prudent to change position. I wonder if he regrets advising John McCain to stand with Governor Palin.

I also wonder if the Obama Administration has ever revised its outlook for employment in the US. The figures Mr. Pethokoukis cites are from 2009.

To provide some context, recall that back in January 2009 Team Obama economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer predicted the unemployment rate by 2013 would be closing in on 5%.

Bernstein and Romer are no longer part of the Obama Administration and the facts have changed since their predictions of 2009.

And with regard to the linked blog, Wiki reports: “More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.” I’m glad they have found a way to continue to collaborate and share their expertise.

At the current rate of job growth it will take until 2025 to reach were we were before the recession started.

A major reason why the pre-recession employment levels will not soon again be reached is the changing demographics here in the US. Nine months ago I posted about the decreasing job participation rate, including how it is expected to decline over the next couple decades. Unless we can convince more people to immigrate to the US, we simply won’t have the workforce to restore pre-recession employment levels anytime soon.

Reference Post: A reduced labor force is a lousy way to cut the unemployment rate

[tigerfan482]

Obama oversold the recovery -- the red is actual unemployment.



At the current rate of job growth it will take until 2025 to reach were we were before the recession started.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you guys will put a good spin on that -- but deep down you know it's not good.



http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/jan...-jobs-anymore/

Again, what exactly does the President need to do? Should he hire more government workers to help reduce that number? You should really be e-mailing your friends in private industry and telling them to hire people. You should also go ahead and e-mail your Republican buddies in Congress and tell them to pass Obama's job creation measures. Keep in mind, the predictions his team made in January 2009 were predicated on the fact that they would have a Congress that would be interested in creating jobs and not trying to take Obama out of one. I know it's modus operandi for Republicans to roadblock everything and then blame the lack of large positive movement on the President, but most of America sees through their tricks and really doesn't trust Republicans to do anything anymore.

[chrisrobin]

.
Chrysler would have been better off going bankrupt.

Chrysler’s Earnings Soar, Raising Fiat’s With Them
By BILL VLASIC
Published: January 30, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/bu...soar.html?_r=0

More evidence of the failed Obama presidency. Oh, the humanity! -

[opinterph]

This is an “On-Topic” thread. Please limit your responses to matters that reasonably relate to the topic introduced in the opening post. If you wish to offer advice to another member about his posting activities, please use the Private Message system. The open forum is not the place to exchange personal insults or discuss each other. Express your opinion about a person’s ideas – not about them personally. Refer to the CE&P Posting Guidelines for additional information.

[Jack Springer]

Again, what exactly does the President need to do? Should he hire more government workers to help reduce that number? You should really be e-mailing your friends in private industry and telling them to hire people. You should also go ahead and e-mail your Republican buddies in Congress and tell them to pass Obama's job creation measures. Keep in mind, the predictions his team made in January 2009 were predicated on the fact that they would have a Congress that would be interested in creating jobs and not trying to take Obama out of one. I know it's modus operandi for Republicans to roadblock everything and then blame the lack of large positive movement on the President, but most of America sees through their tricks and really doesn't trust Republicans to do anything anymore.

A US President has ways of making it more convenient for businesses to be more productive. There is much uncertainty regarding issues such as taxes, Obamacare, regulations including EPA and HHS regulations that have businesses very unsure of what the future will hold.

There are no tricks involved. It's called leadership.

[xbuzzerx]

A US President has ways of making it more convenient for businesses to be more productive. There is much uncertainty regarding issues such as taxes, Obamacare, regulations including EPA and HHS regulations that have businesses very unsure of what the future will hold.

There are no tricks involved. It's called leadership.

Jack now you're talking about how there's been uncertainty about the laws but you blame Obama entirely for that... and you don't seem to blame the Republican party acting as pure obstructionists and delaying everything they can for as long as possible as part of the equation at all.

[MystikWizard]

A US President has ways of making it more convenient for businesses to be more productive. There is much uncertainty regarding issues such as taxes, Obamacare, regulations including EPA and HHS regulations that have businesses very unsure of what the future will hold.

There are no tricks involved. It's called leadership.

One can "lead" all they want. Getting the House, controlled by the opposing party, to agree with your priorities is another thing. So sick and tired of the bullshit from blowhards out there that simply either:

1) Don't get the basics of the functions of each of the branches of government works ... or
2) Understands it, and just tries to trpll others in an attempt to start an argument for the Hell of it

The President was re-elected. The only reason the GOP kept the House was due to the gerrymandering committed in 2010 by these lowlife GOP governors. Otherwise, the Dems would have reclaimed the House, as well. Then, "leadership" as you put it, would have been much less of an issue.

Keep kicking and stomping your feet all you want. The majority of Americans seem to get how government works now.

[Jack Springer]

One can "lead" all they want. Getting the House, controlled by the opposing party, to agree with your priorities is another thing. So sick and tired of the bullshit from blowhards out there that simply either:

1) Don't get the basics of the functions of each of the branches of government works ... or
2) Understands it, and just tries to trpll others in an attempt to start an argument for the Hell of it

The President was re-elected. The only reason the GOP kept the House was due to the gerrymandering committed in 2010 by these lowlife GOP governors. Otherwise, the Dems would have reclaimed the House, as well. Then, "leadership" as you put it, would have been much less of an issue.

Keep kicking and stomping your feet all you want. The majority of Americans seem to get how government works now.

More stimulus to unions is not going to get us out of this rut. What else has Obama suggested?

[MystikWizard]

More stimulus to unions is not going to get us out of this rut. What else has Obama suggested?

What else has Congress brought him? Last time I checked, Congress was supposed to bring Legislation to the President's desk first, so he can either sign off or veto it.

Seems to me like you are pointing the finger at the wrong branch of Government. Then again, most Republicans seem to have confused which branch they should be looking at for legislative matters since Obama has been in office.

"We want legislation and action ... so we could look at the 'LEGISLATIVE BRANCH' ... but nah ... what sense does that make? Let's look at the Executive Branch instead."

All of you should be calling your Congressman if you want action on something.

[xbuzzerx]

All of you should be calling your Congressman if you want action on something.

Quoted for emphasis. I don't know how many topics or threads it's been necessary to point that out in, but it's been a lot. There's a whole lot of vague "Obama should LEAD, Obama could have done this, Obama could have done that", and somehow it always involves passing a lot of new laws left and right and promptly-- with a Congress that is routinely engaging in obstructionism because they seemingly have absolutely no idea how to participate in government as Republicans under a successful Democratic opponent under any other criteria.

[MystikWizard]

Quoted for emphasis. I don't know how many topics or threads it's been necessary to point that out in, but it's been a lot. There's a whole lot of vague "Obama should LEAD, Obama could have done this, Obama could have done that", and somehow it always involves passing a lot of new laws left and right and promptly-- with a Congress that is routinely engaging in obstructionism because they seemingly have absolutely no idea how to participate in government as Republicans under a successful Democratic opponent under any other criteria.

Well, I think it points to the bigger problem of trolling, frankly. And it's obviously all around the internet on political forums. Because you have people that aren't interested in having a real discussion about topics and solutions. Rather, you have people that simply enjoy having conflict and taunting the other side because it's fun to do.

You could point out the obvious such as "Legislative matters should involve the leaders of Congress first since it is their duty to introduce legislation, pass it, and then forward it up to the President", but it doesn't matter.

Blaming the President is conditional depending on the situation in Congress. If one party controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the House ... as Bush did for 6 out of his 8 years in office, then pointing the finger at the President is certainly understandable. Pointing the finger at the President over legislative matters when the opposite party controls one house of Congress is frankly laughable, childish, and non-sensible. And this is for reasons that are obvious to pretty much anyone with a level-head on their shoulders.

As further demonstration that Americans who vote seem to be beginning to understand this, Obama was re-elected despite unemployment, the economy, etc. And Congress still keeps a low disapproval rating, with Americans blaming Republicans for their obstructionism in Congress more than the Democrats.

As mentioned earlier, you can thank the gerrymandering on the GOP governors from 2010 for being the only reason they were fortunate enough to keep the House. And that tactic should frankly be illegal. Maybe the Dems should start doing the same thing if that issue isn't going to be addressed. They already have in a few states. I guess if the GOP wants to cheat, there is no reason why the Dems can't as well.

I want to know why Jack Springer and others are not looking to Speaker Boehner and their party's leadership in Congress for not leading on this matter, instead of pointing the finger at the Executive Branch, whose responsibility as defined by Congress in legislative matters is purely checks and balances-- to either sign or veto legislation passed by Congress.

[Rolyo85]

I want to know why Jack Springer and others are not looking to Speaker Boehner and their party's leadership in Congress for not leading on this matter, instead of pointing the finger at the Executive Branch, whose responsibility as defined by Congress in legislative matters is purely checks and balances-- to either sign or veto legislation passed by Congress.

I want to know too, but he'll likely call it a "trap" and refuse to respond. And frankly, I'm not even certain he's clear on what the role of the president is...

[tigerfan482]

A US President has ways of making it more convenient for businesses to be more productive. There is much uncertainty regarding issues such as taxes, Obamacare, regulations including EPA and HHS regulations that have businesses very unsure of what the future will hold.

There are no tricks involved. It's called leadership.

The only reason there is any uncertainty in any of that is because Republicans can't sit down and work out a solution with Democrats. It's that simple. Taxes could have easily been solved earlier than they were had the Republicans in the House not stuck to their "no raising taxes ever" ideals and just kicked the can down the road slightly with temporary extensions. Obamacare was passed as the law of the land almost 4 years ago and was upheld by the Supreme Court. The only reason there is uncertainty there is because Republicans keep trying ways to repeal it, block its implementation, or defund it. EPA regulations haven't seen any major changes for the past few years. The only uncertainty there was a Republican presidential candidate running on the platform of basically eliminating the EPA. The debt ceiling and sequester could be easily solved if Republicans didn't take a "my way or the highway" approach.

The uncertainty that comes from government is only there because the Republicans make it. If they can take time to pull their heads out of their ideologue asses and show a willingness to compromise, then you will see much more get done.

[xbuzzerx]

So nobody is in favor of my decree idea? We can also have five year plans directed by the President and Congress could be all appointed... we should also rig the system so only one party wins all the time. That's the idea I get from certain right wing trolls on here. They complain about Obama not being effective enough...

It's certainly close to how they WANTED things to work when Bush had all 3 branches.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Anything above zero or negative growth is a plus -- but the number has to be bigger to signify actual growth in the economy.

You're comparing baking a cake in an EasyBake(r) oven to one baked in a regular kitchen oven.

The economy sucks and yet the President didn't lay out a plan to help stimulate growth or jobs in his SOTU speech ... just more government give-a-ways.

[xbuzzerx]

^^^

Anything above zero or negative growth is a plus -- but the number has to be bigger to signify actual growth in the economy.

You're comparing baking a cake in an EasyBake(r) oven to one baked in a regular kitchen oven.

The economy sucks and yet the President didn't lay out a plan to help stimulate growth or jobs in his SOTU speech ... just more government give-a-ways.

Write your Republican representatives and tell them that when the economy is in need of help this is not the time to be engaging in obstructionism for the sake of partisanship.

[Jack Springer]

^^

Now you're just dreaming.

I wish it wasn't dreaming -- we need growth.

[xbuzzerx]

^^

Now you're just dreaming.

I wish it wasn't dreaming -- we need growth.

The slow quarter was largely the result of the manmade fiscal cliff which was a lot of financial uncertainty because your party wouldn't negotiate like adults until the deadline was flashing red.

Now as growth continues you will proceed to not talk about the economy whatsoever or give any credit to Obama.

[Jack Springer]

No, the contraction was because of a fiscal cliff. That was all spin -- Obama made fiscal cliff occurs March 1 - and won't show up for most until later.

The problem is that our leader does not see a problem. Do you think GWB envisioned 9/11 -- he didn't --- but had to adjust his presidency to the issue at hand, not what he initially wanted to accomplish.

You're going to have to do better than that.

[CowboyBob]

Springer, several people have posted facts for you in this thread and in others about how wrong you are and you're just scampering from thread to thread trolling. You aren't paying attention to anything, just posting a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with reality.

You're sickening.

[xbuzzerx]

No, the contraction was because of a fiscal cliff. That was all spin -- Obama made fiscal cliff occurs March 1 - and won't show up for most until later.

The problem is that our leader does not see a problem. Do you think GWB envisioned 9/11 -- he didn't --- but had to adjust his presidency to the issue at hand, not what he initially wanted to accomplish.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Yeah you're right Jack. A President who virtually campaigned on the economy doesn't see the problem at all.

You see whatever you want to see. Please post something actually worth responding to.

[CowboyBob]

^don't take his bait.

[rareboy]

I have to debunk this thread as certain right wingers are still bringing up this gdp figure as if it proves some point.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...icit-trade-gap



Lulz... the economy never "died". The GDP probably grew about +0.3% in the fourth quarter and the government figure is likely to revised upwards. This is good because it sets the stage for even stronger growth in the later part of this year.

Poor Jack.

[TX-Beau]

Yeah, maybe something died on his porch, pretty sure it wasn't the economy - 'possum probably.

[Jack Springer]

What a wrong, totally FALSE response. The fiscal cliff is all spin? It was immediate and most of the cuts were immediate if there was nothing done. Our leader most certainly does see issues in the economy, but you keep posting outright falsehoods about both this country and the economy that need to be called out on. Yes, very sickening.

- - - Updated - - -



WE ARE HAVING FUCKING GROWTH. THE FIGURES I POSTED THAT SHOW CLEARS GROWTH. I'm dreaming? Two months of job growth hitting 200,000 and that looks to continue. Give me a fucking break.''

The 4th quarter was a one off. It wasn't really because of the fiscal cliff, but rather a draw down in government spending and business inventories.

You're only looking at what you want to look at -- more people have been leaving the job market than those that have found jobs.

Is an increase of .03% in the GNP really an increase?

[FuryOfFirestorm]

You're only looking at what you want to look at -- more people have been leaving the job market than those that have found jobs.

Is an increase of .03% in the GNP really an increase?

It's only a decrease if you use Republican Math, the only math that can turn a 332 - 206 win for Obama into a 483 - 55 landslide for Romney. In Actual, Reality-based Math, a .03% increase is a .03% increase.