Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% –

[Wehrwolfen]

Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression

by Jim Hoft
July 31, 2013




Worst. President. Ever.
Obama GDP rate reaches new lows.

(Market Watch)

Via Drudge:
Income inequality rose faster under Obama than Bush or Clinton…
1st Q GDP revised to 1.1% from 1.8%…

The AP reported:

U.S. economic growth accelerated in the April-June quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.7 percent, as businesses spent more and the federal government cut less.

The Commerce Department says growth improved from a sluggish 1.1 percent rate in the January-March quarter, which was revised from an initial 1.8 percent rate. The pickup in growth was surprising as most economists predicted a far weaker second quarter.

Consumers increased their spending more slowly in the second quarter. And a surge in imports reduced growth by the most in three years. But the federal government cut spending only 1.5 percent. And state and local governments increased spending for the first time in a year.

And, there’s more…
Unemployment and Deficits are at record levels.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...Bush_vs_Obama.jpg.pagespeed.ic.3OyLK7NY-f.jpg​

Urban Grounds


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression | The Gateway Pundit


Of course we are told everything is coming up roses, while the true state of affairs is dire.

 

[trfjr]

Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression

by Jim Hoft
July 31, 2013




Worst. President. Ever.
Obama GDP rate reaches new lows.

(Market Watch)

Via Drudge:
Income inequality rose faster under Obama than Bush or Clinton…
1st Q GDP revised to 1.1% from 1.8%…

The AP reported:

U.S. economic growth accelerated in the April-June quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.7 percent, as businesses spent more and the federal government cut less.

The Commerce Department says growth improved from a sluggish 1.1 percent rate in the January-March quarter, which was revised from an initial 1.8 percent rate. The pickup in growth was surprising as most economists predicted a far weaker second quarter.

Consumers increased their spending more slowly in the second quarter. And a surge in imports reduced growth by the most in three years. But the federal government cut spending only 1.5 percent. And state and local governments increased spending for the first time in a year.

And, there’s more…
Unemployment and Deficits are at record levels.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...Bush_vs_Obama.jpg.pagespeed.ic.3OyLK7NY-f.jpg​

Urban Grounds


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression | The Gateway Pundit


Of course we are told everything is coming up roses, while the true state of affairs is dire.

No matter what evidence you provide no matter what charts and statistics you post. the liberal ideologue sycophants are so drunk on the Obama Koolaid it will go ignored

 

[Slyfox696]

No matter what evidence you provide no matter what charts and statistics you post. the liberal ideologue sycophants are so drunk on the Obama Koolaid it will go ignored

If Republicans would ever post an honest evaluation, it'd be easier to take them seriously. Of course, an honest evaluation would completely defeat the stupid stuff they want people to believe, so you can see why that won't happen.

 

[trfjr]

If Republicans would ever post an honest evaluation, it'd be easier to take them seriously. Of course, an honest evaluation would completely defeat the stupid stuff they want people to believe, so you can see why that won't happen.

its dishonest because all the evidence you posted to show different? Or is it dishonest because you say it is ?
get off the Obama Koolaid it is rotting your brain

 

[Peter Grimm]

Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression

by Jim Hoft
July 31, 2013




Worst. President. Ever.
Obama GDP rate reaches new lows.

(Market Watch)

Via Drudge:
Income inequality rose faster under Obama than Bush or Clinton…
1st Q GDP revised to 1.1% from 1.8%…

The AP reported:

U.S. economic growth accelerated in the April-June quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.7 percent, as businesses spent more and the federal government cut less.

The Commerce Department says growth improved from a sluggish 1.1 percent rate in the January-March quarter, which was revised from an initial 1.8 percent rate. The pickup in growth was surprising as most economists predicted a far weaker second quarter.

Consumers increased their spending more slowly in the second quarter. And a surge in imports reduced growth by the most in three years. But the federal government cut spending only 1.5 percent. And state and local governments increased spending for the first time in a year.

And, there’s more…
Unemployment and Deficits are at record levels.

http://4-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...Bush_vs_Obama.jpg.pagespeed.ic.3OyLK7NY-f.jpg​

Urban Grounds


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Worst. President. Ever… Obama Second Quarter GDP at 1.7% – Worst Growth Rate Since Depression | The Gateway Pundit


Of course we are told everything is coming up roses, while the true state of affairs is dire.

I'm no fan of Obama either, but could we see a graph that doesn't include the great recession of 2008? That certainly skews the numbers and, even as a Republican, I can't blame it on Obama. That was caused by the housing crisis and that, my friends, was Bill Clinton's fault.

 

[specklebang]

I agree it's Clinton's fault and if we had a Republican President for 8 years after Clinton, they would have put the kibosh to this.

I'm no fan of Obama either, but could we see a graph that doesn't include the great recession of 2008? That certainly skews the numbers and, even as a Republican, I can't blame it on Obama. That was caused by the housing crisis and that, my friends, was Bill Clinton's fault.

 

[Peter Grimm]

I agree it's Clinton's fault and if we had a Republican President for 8 years after Clinton, they would have put the kibosh to this.

Clinton pushed HUD to underwrite loans to lower-income folks. He was well-intentioned, he wanted lower income people to be able to afford to buy rather than rent their homes, however it backfired a decade later when said loans went bad (the poor folks couldn't pay them).

The original underwriters had taken those loans, packaged them as investment instruments, and sold them to the banks of the world. Those banks sold them to investors.

Crash, boom, and the economy crumbles.

I will say this for Bush - he was too dumb to see the writing on the wall and do anything about it, and he was responsible for allowing the loans to be sold off in the first place.

 

[Slyfox696]

its dishonest because all the evidence you posted to show different? Or is it dishonest because you say it is ?
get off the Obama Koolaid it is rotting your brain

If you cannot see the stupidity in believing that graphic, you clearly are not interested in facts.

First of all, it compares the last 6 years (2 of which weren't even Obama) to 15 years, 34 years and 84 years (the first two of which don't even include the recession, which makes ZERO sense to compare with). If you know anything about sampling size, you'll understand the foolishness of that. Second of all, as I mentioned before, the last column includes 2 years of Bush's presidency, which just so happened to include the economic collapse which devastated the economy.

If you look simply at GDP growth under Obama since the recession ended, our GDP has improved by an average rate of roughly 2.2% over the last 16 quarters. Even if you include the first two quarters of Obama's presidency (which was the recession only a partisan fool would say was Obama's fault), the growth still comes out to roughly 1.6% over the last 18 quarters, which is still double what that chart shows.

The chart is incredibly dishonest, and only dishonest people who have no desire for truth would put any real stock in it.

I'm no fan of Obama either, but could we see a graph that doesn't include the great recession of 2008?

You could, but that would go against the dishonest narrative being presented. Furthermore, I'd like to see charts broken down to equal number of years being represented, not 6 years against 84.

 

[fmw]

So we measure a President on the state of the GDP, something over which the President has no control?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm no fan of Obama either, but could we see a graph that doesn't include the great recession of 2008? That certainly skews the numbers and, even as a Republican, I can't blame it on Obama. That was caused by the housing crisis and that, my friends, was Bill Clinton's fault.

I agree it's Clinton's fault and if we had a Republican President for 8 years after Clinton, they would have put the kibosh to this.

I'm sorry, but part of the blame must lie at the feet of the uninformed / uneducated public.

 

[trfjr]

If you cannot see the stupidity in believing that graphic, you clearly are not interested in facts.

First of all, it compares the last 6 years (2 of which weren't even Obama) to 15 years, 34 years and 84 years (the first two of which don't even include the recession, which makes ZERO sense to compare with). If you know anything about sampling size, you'll understand the foolishness of that. Second of all, as I mentioned before, the last column includes 2 years of Bush's presidency, which just so happened to include the economic collapse which devastated the economy.

If you look simply at GDP growth under Obama since the recession ended, our GDP has improved by an average rate of roughly 2.2% over the last 16 quarters. Even if you include the first two quarters of Obama's presidency (which was the recession only a partisan fool would say was Obama's fault), the growth still comes out to roughly 1.6% over the last 18 quarters, which is still double what that chart shows.

The chart is incredibly dishonest, and only dishonest people who have no desire for truth would put any real stock in it.


You could, but that would go against the dishonest narrative being presented. Furthermore, I'd like to see charts broken down to equal number of years being represented, not 6 years against 84.

During just the years that President Barack Obama has been in office (2009 through 2012), average annual growth in real GDP has been only 1.075 percent. - See more at: 1%: Average Annual Economic Growth Under Obama | CNS News

 

[Peter Grimm]

So we measure a President on the state of the GDP, something over which the President has no control?

No control?

 

[Peter Grimm]

I'm sorry, but part of the blame must lie at the feet of the uninformed / uneducated public.

Why are you stopping at just their feet?

 

[pbrauer]

GDP Report: Sequestration Continues To Drag On Economic Growth

The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent from April to June, above the consensus expectations of economists, government analysts reported Wednesday. Reuters’ survey of economists had predicted quarterly growth of 1 percent, with some warning the growth rate might have been as low as 0.4 percent. The preliminary number released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is subject to revisions and is still below the growth rate required to bring down unemployment.

The number could have been even stronger without sequestration. The share of growth related to government spending detracted 0.08 percentage points from overall growth, reflecting a 1.5 percent decline in government consumption and investment over the second quarter of the year. The BEA also revised GDP growth for the first quarter down to 1.1 percent from an initial figure of 1.8 percent.

Austerity had already taken a large bite out of the last two quarterly GDP figures, which saw much larger slides in government consumption, and Wednesday’s release marked the 8th quarter out of the past 10 where public policy was harming rather than helping economic growth:
​

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Why are you stopping at just their feet?

Figure of speech.

 

[Slyfox696]

During just the years that President Barack Obama has been in office (2009 through 2012), average annual growth in real GDP has been only 1.075 percent. - See more at: 1%: Average Annual Economic Growth Under Obama | CNS News

Again, you're proving my point.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/txt/gdp2q13_adv.txt
BEA : Page Not Found
Quarterly Growth in real GDP at annual rates, Percent

Do your own math. You will never come up with 1.075%.

And in case that second link doesn't work, do a google search for "real gdp quarter history" and download the xls file.


Furthermore, that's even including the abysmal negative growth we were suffering from the recession which occurred before Obama ever took office. Remove those first few months (or two quarters) and the rate is even higher than the actual number of his entire presidency. Finally, what you're talking about is a completely different statistic than the one presented in the chart (which, by the way, I'd love to know how they came up with the number and what statistics they used, as I was unable to replicate their number despite many attempts to do so). Can you compare your statistic against each president's real GDP average annual growth and then compare them? Can you list the growth rate if you remove the economic recession Obama inherited?

The fact, you don't want to tell the full story, because the truth ruins the false narrative you're trying to present. It's just that simple.

 

[trfjr]

Again, you're proving my point.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/txt/gdp2q13_adv.txt
BEA : Page Not Found
Quarterly Growth in real GDP at annual rates, Percent

Do your own math. You will never come up with 1.075%.

And in case that second link doesn't work, do a google search for "real gdp quarter history" and download the xls file.


Furthermore, that's even including the abysmal negative growth we were suffering from the recession which occurred before Obama ever took office. Remove those first few months (or two quarters) and the rate is even higher than the actual number of his entire presidency. Finally, what you're talking about is a completely different statistic than the one presented in the chart (which, by the way, I'd love to know how they came up with the number and what statistics they used, as I was unable to replicate their number despite many attempts to do so). Can you compare your statistic against each president's real GDP average annual growth and then compare them? Can you list the growth rate if you remove the economic recession Obama inherited?

The fact, you don't want to tell the full story, because the truth ruins the false narrative you're trying to present. It's just that simple.

In the decade from 1981 to 1990, according to the BEA, average annual growth in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 3.36 percent. In the decade from 1991 to 2000, average annual growth in real GDP was 3.45 percent. In the twenty years from 1981 to 2000, average annual growth in real GDP was 3.405 percent. By contrast, in the decade from 2001 to 2010, average annual growth in real GDP was only 1.67 percent, and, so far, in the 21st century (from 2001 through 2012), average annual growth in real GDP has been only 1.775 percent. During just the years that President Barack Obama has been in office (2009 through 2012), average annual growth in real GDP has been only 1.075 percent. The 1.075 percent average annual growth in real GDP under Obama equals less than a third (31.57 percent) of the 3.405 percent average annual growth in real GDP the United States saw in the last two decades of the last century. The 1.775 percent average annual growth of GDP in the twelve years since the beginning of this century, equals only 52 percent of the 3.405 percent average annual growth in real GDP the country saw in the last two decades of the last century.

“1%: Average Annual Economic Growth Under Obama” | protein wisdom

I don't even know why im wasting my time with an Obama koolaid drunk ideologue sycophant like you, because like i mentioned in my first post on this thread no matter what evidence is provided no matter what statistic are posted you are to drunk on the Obama koolaid to admit he is a failure

 

[specklebang]

Clinton screwed up and Bush didn't do his job stopping it. They are both part of the blame. This was a wide-spread conspiracy that allowed some people to make great fortunes, Why anyone thought that house prices would continue to increase so far beyond their intrinsic value is very mysterious. Yet it was supported rather than reigned in or re-examined. I don't care about Bush's intellect. These guys have advisors and entire agencies to work on this stuff. The degree of inattention is just - well - astonishing.

Not everybody is meant to own a home. What would we do? Throw away the apartment buildings? Owning a home is a reward and a responsibility. You either get to that economic stage or you don't. I am confident in my assertion that if I had rented all my life instead of owned, I'd be financially way ahead by renting. Houses are like having a Russian girlfriend - very expensive. The fixing and upgrading never ceases.

So Clinton opened the path to the asylum and Bush ignored it until it exploded. Does that mean they were both bad Presidents? Not really, they both did other things, good and bad.

Clinton pushed HUD to underwrite loans to lower-income folks. He was well-intentioned, he wanted lower income people to be able to afford to buy rather than rent their homes, however it backfired a decade later when said loans went bad (the poor folks couldn't pay them).

The original underwriters had taken those loans, packaged them as investment instruments, and sold them to the banks of the world. Those banks sold them to investors.

Crash, boom, and the economy crumbles.

I will say this for Bush - he was too dumb to see the writing on the wall and do anything about it, and he was responsible for allowing the loans to be sold off in the first place.

 

[Slyfox696]

“1%: Average Annual Economic Growth Under Obama” | protein wisdom

I don't even know why im wasting my time with an Obama koolaid drunk ideologue sycophant like you, because like i mentioned in my first post on this thread no matter what evidence is provided no matter what statistic are posted you are to drunk on the Obama koolaid to admit he is a failure

Yes, I read the article the first time you posted it. At no time did you do anything I suggested in your last post. All you did was regurgitate yourself regurgitating a source which provides a number which I've yet to be able to duplicate.

You accuse me of being an "Obama koolaid drunk ideologue sycophant" and yet you cannot even address a single fact I've provided in opposition, mostly because you simply have no idea what you're talking about. It's just far more convenient for you to rely on the distortions or even outright lies which go along with what you want to believe.

You accuse me of being mindless, yet you lack the ability or desire to actually address what I said you just repeat what someone else told you. I believe they call that hypocrisy.

 

[rocket88]

Worst President Ever....unless you count James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Warren G Harding, Richard Nixon....and even they only merit consideration if you don't count Andrew Johnson.

Before you make really sweeping statements, have a little historical perspective.

 

[greyhat]

Because everyone knows POTUS is what drives GDP...LMFAOL

 

[pbrauer]

“1%: Average Annual Economic Growth Under Obama” | protein wisdom

I don't even know why im wasting my time with an Obama koolaid drunk ideologue sycophant like you, because like i mentioned in my first post on this thread no matter what evidence is provided no matter what statistic are posted you are to drunk on the Obama koolaid to admit he is a failure

Do you know what the GDP growth rate was before Obama became president? The wasn't any, it was negative.


United States GDP Growth Rate | Actual Data | Forecasts | Calendar

 

[trfjr]

Yes, I read the article the first time you posted it. At no time did you do anything I suggested in your last post. All you did was regurgitate yourself regurgitating a source which provides a number which I've yet to be able to duplicate.

You accuse me of being an "Obama koolaid drunk ideologue sycophant" and yet you cannot even address a single fact I've provided in opposition, mostly because you simply have no idea what you're talking about. It's just far more convenient for you to rely on the distortions or even outright lies which go along with what you want to believe.

You accuse me of being mindless, yet you lack the ability or desire to actually address what I said. I believe they call that hypocrisy. Come to think of it, it seems it's a pattern with you, as this is now the third time I've caught you doing it.

Reagan inherited just as bad or could be argued a worse economy than Obama.
Reagans average GDP was 7.2 in his forth year and an average of 3.5 over his presidency Obama forth year was a 2.2 with an average over his presidency at 1.07

so there is your comparison

 

[jimbo]

If Republicans would ever post an honest evaluation, it'd be easier to take them seriously. Of course, an honest evaluation would completely defeat the stupid stuff they want people to believe, so you can see why that won't happen.

Bring on your honest evaluation, I will look at it. Bring on your honest evaluation of the original post. I will look at it.

Otherwise, what I see is unsubstantiated rhetoritic.

 

[Slyfox696]

Reagan inherited just as bad or could be argued a worse economy than Obama.

Yes, the 8.6% growth in Q1 of 1981 Reagan inherited is almost as bad as the -5.4% Obama had in Q1 2009. :roll:

Oh, and let's not forget the average 11.16% change over the previous 5 years before Reagan took office. Or, if we're using in comparison to chained 2009 dollars, the fact the 7.3% is EASILY an anomaly amongst the other rates of growth during his presidency.

Year

1981 2.6
1982 -1.9
1983 4.6
1984 7.3
1985 4.2
1986 3.5
1987 3.5
1988 4.2

so there is your comparison

Indeed.

Bring on your honest evaluation, I will look at it. Bring on your honest evaluation of the original post. I will look at it.

Otherwise, what I see is unsubstantiated rhetoritic.

I already provided it. It was my next post.