1st Quarter GDP revised upward to 5.6%

[dullard]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I really love how hard the media tries to make it sound like we are still fighting a recession.

Which mainstream media links can you provide that clearly state we are in a recession?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Stunt
Actually I am looking long term.

Engineer is the one with the narrow scope...not I.

Ok then, when is your start date on this graph? Or where on this graph?

Engineer clearly stated his start date was ~1980. That first graph has gotten a lot worse since 1980. The second graph is also worse than in 1980.

Thanks dullard.

The first graph has a distict trend that wars (whether real - WWII, etc or implied - Cold War) cause huge spikes in deficit spending vs GDP.

Stunt,

You can argue if you wish. dullard's graph shows exactly what I stated. In the last 25 years, our overall debt to GDP ratio has more than doubled with only a brief pause in that time. This year is the first year in the last 5 to reverse that trend and with new pork coming online, there is no promise (sorry Charrison) that even the great GDP growth will keep that trend alive. And, I never said that deficits were all bad. I stated exactly what you mentioned: You need to grow your economy faster than your debt, and not every year, just the majority of years.

Originally posted by: Engineer


I don't even think we "have" to have a balanced budget any more, but I do feel that defict growth should lag GDP growth in a majority of the years (occasional hiccup). The last 25 years has seen the overall debt ratio to GDP ratio go from the 30's to 70.

Given the fact that we have doubled our debt to GDP ratio in a mere 25 years, it would not be safe to assume that we "couldn't" surpass those other countries such as Japan (or even Canada) if that trend continues. Will it happen? I don't know. I certainly hope not. Let's see it go a few years (hell, even two would be nice) with better GDP growth than debt spending and the US will be fine. Continue that trend line (25 years path) and we'll be the next Japan.

And if you go back 60 years you will note our debt to GDP ratio has been cut in half.

Stunts position is correct. If you can outgrow the spending it will become insignificant.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Stunt
Actually I am looking long term.

Engineer is the one with the narrow scope...not I.

Ok then, when is your start date on this graph? Or where on this graph?

Engineer clearly stated his start date was ~1980. That first graph has gotten a lot worse since 1980. The second graph is also worse than in 1980.

Thanks dullard.

The first graph has a distict trend that wars (whether real - WWII, etc or implied - Cold War) cause huge spikes in deficit spending vs GDP.

Stunt,

You can argue if you wish. dullard's graph shows exactly what I stated. In the last 25 years, our overall debt to GDP ratio has more than doubled with only a brief pause in that time. This year is the first year in the last 5 to reverse that trend and with new pork coming online, there is no promise (sorry Charrison) that even the great GDP growth will keep that trend alive. And, I never said that deficits were all bad. I stated exactly what you mentioned: You need to grow your economy faster than your debt, and not every year, just the majority of years.

Originally posted by: Engineer


I don't even think we "have" to have a balanced budget any more, but I do feel that defict growth should lag GDP growth in a majority of the years (occasional hiccup). The last 25 years has seen the overall debt ratio to GDP ratio go from the 30's to 70.

Given the fact that we have doubled our debt to GDP ratio in a mere 25 years, it would not be safe to assume that we "couldn't" surpass those other countries such as Japan (or even Canada) if that trend continues. Will it happen? I don't know. I certainly hope not. Let's see it go a few years (hell, even two would be nice) with better GDP growth than debt spending and the US will be fine. Continue that trend line (25 years path) and we'll be the next Japan.

And if you go back 60 years you will note our debt to GDP ratio has been cut in half.

Stunts position is correct. If you can outgrow the spending it will become insignificant.

See above "new" bolded section. Is that not what I said when I said that you need to grow your economy faster than your debt?

Sure, looking at a 60 year picture, it's cut in half, but looking at the "LAST" 25 years, it's doubled meaning that it's going the wrong way (debt is growing faster than the economy for the last 25 years). I've dropped my balanced budget requirement idea in leu of growing the economy faster than the debt, but that's not happening, is it?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer
See above "new" bolded section. Is that not what I said when I said that you need to grow your economy faster than your debt?

Sure, looking at a 60 year picture, it's cut in half, but looking at the "LAST" 25 years, it's doubled meaning that it's going the wrong way (debt is growing faster than the economy for the last 25 years). I've dropped my balanced budget requirement idea in leu of growing the economy faster than the debt, but that's not happening, is it?

How much did GDP grow in those 25 years, compared to the previous 25?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

What's different now? Just a different form of speculation but this time it's coupled with massive gov't support in the form of deficit spending and (money) printing presses.

please, are you going to attribute every economic growth period to govt deficit spending?

Why would I stoop to some inaccurate form of logic (iow, stoop to your level)?

Deficits were DROPPING during the boom of the 90s. Why are they still rising now if GDP is so great? Hmmm??

Deficits aren't rising. Check the numbers again.

They're not?

http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0

Total Deficit -412 -331 -314 -324 -335 -321 -317 -218 -78 -80 -66 -57

Lookie there. Increases in the deficit for each of the next 10 years.

Silly me for thinking the deficit was dropping. :roll:


BTW,

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051127-101631-5260r.htm

a record-shattering trade-related current-account deficit, which has increased from 0.8 percent of GDP in 1992 to 5.7 percent in 2004 to nearly 7 percent this year; (b) the record reversal during recent years in the nation's fiscal balance, which has moved from an average federal-budget surplus of $163 billion (fiscal years 1999-2001) to an average budget deficit of $370 billion (2003-2005), representing an average fiscal reversal of $533 billion per year; (c) America's evolution from being the world's largest creditor nation ($361 billion in 1980, measured by its net international investment position) to being the world's largest debtor (-$2,484 billion in 2004, reflecting a four-year increase of $1,123 billion); and (d) the collapse in the U.S. personal saving rate, which has literally turned negative in recent months.

And the recent news that US personal savings rates are now negative.


But, everything's fine. Ignore the fundamentals, go with the flow of the short-term, exaggerated indicators.

I'm looking at the numbers...and I see DECREASES FOR THE DEFICIT. Do you even know the difference between debt and deficit?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
See above "new" bolded section. Is that not what I said when I said that you need to grow your economy faster than your debt?

Sure, looking at a 60 year picture, it's cut in half, but looking at the "LAST" 25 years, it's doubled meaning that it's going the wrong way (debt is growing faster than the economy for the last 25 years). I've dropped my balanced budget requirement idea in leu of growing the economy faster than the debt, but that's not happening, is it?

How much did GDP grow in those 25 years, compared to the previous 25?

Why does it matter? Not nearly as fast as the debt.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

What's different now? Just a different form of speculation but this time it's coupled with massive gov't support in the form of deficit spending and (money) printing presses.

please, are you going to attribute every economic growth period to govt deficit spending?

Why would I stoop to some inaccurate form of logic (iow, stoop to your level)?

Deficits were DROPPING during the boom of the 90s. Why are they still rising now if GDP is so great? Hmmm??

Deficits aren't rising. Check the numbers again.

They're not?

http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0

Total Deficit -412 -331 -314 -324 -335 -321 -317 -218 -78 -80 -66 -57

Lookie there. Increases in the deficit for each of the next 10 years.

Silly me for thinking the deficit was dropping. :roll:


BTW,

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051127-101631-5260r.htm

a record-shattering trade-related current-account deficit, which has increased from 0.8 percent of GDP in 1992 to 5.7 percent in 2004 to nearly 7 percent this year; (b) the record reversal during recent years in the nation's fiscal balance, which has moved from an average federal-budget surplus of $163 billion (fiscal years 1999-2001) to an average budget deficit of $370 billion (2003-2005), representing an average fiscal reversal of $533 billion per year; (c) America's evolution from being the world's largest creditor nation ($361 billion in 1980, measured by its net international investment position) to being the world's largest debtor (-$2,484 billion in 2004, reflecting a four-year increase of $1,123 billion); and (d) the collapse in the U.S. personal saving rate, which has literally turned negative in recent months.

And the recent news that US personal savings rates are now negative.


But, everything's fine. Ignore the fundamentals, go with the flow of the short-term, exaggerated indicators.

I'm looking at the numbers...and I see DECREASES FOR THE DEFICIT. Do you even know the difference between debt and deficit?

Are the deficits increasing or not?

324 is larger than 314 and 335 is larger than 324

Thank you, come again soon.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
See above "new" bolded section. Is that not what I said when I said that you need to grow your economy faster than your debt?

Sure, looking at a 60 year picture, it's cut in half, but looking at the "LAST" 25 years, it's doubled meaning that it's going the wrong way (debt is growing faster than the economy for the last 25 years). I've dropped my balanced budget requirement idea in leu of growing the economy faster than the debt, but that's not happening, is it?

How much did GDP grow in those 25 years, compared to the previous 25?

Why does it matter? Not nearly as fast as the debt.

It matters, as the debt has not affected GDP growth at all.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer
See above "new" bolded section. Is that not what I said when I said that you need to grow your economy faster than your debt?

Sure, looking at a 60 year picture, it's cut in half, but looking at the "LAST" 25 years, it's doubled meaning that it's going the wrong way (debt is growing faster than the economy for the last 25 years). I've dropped my balanced budget requirement idea in leu of growing the economy faster than the debt, but that's not happening, is it?

How much did GDP grow in those 25 years, compared to the previous 25?

Why does it matter? Not nearly as fast as the debt.

It matters, as the debt has not affected GDP growth at all.

And your proof of this is what? So the GDP couldn't have been stronger (or weaker for that matter too) if the debt (deficits) hadn't grown as much as they have? Proof?

 

[conjur]

Housing affordability has hit a 14-year low
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10532065/#051222

At the end of the first five years of the Bush administration, Housing affordability, one of the two key building blocks of the American Dream, has hit a 14-year low, according to the National Association of Realtors' Affordability Index, a widely followed measure of the average household's ability to buy a home at current interest rates. In some areas, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Miami, housing affordability has dropped to levels not seen since the early to mid-1980s, according to mortgage giant Fannie Mae.
...
Housing affordability fell nearly 9% in the third-quarter from the same period a year earlier, according to an analysis prepared for The Wall Street Journal by Moody's Economy.com, a unit of Moody's Corp., which adjusted the NAR Affordability Index for seasonal variations. Affordability dropped by more than 20% in nearly two-dozen markets, including Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz., Spokane, Wash., and Orlando and Lakeland, Fla., according to the study. "You have to go back 25 years to find a decline that is as significant on a percentage basis," says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com.

Guess that's why new home sales had the largest drop in 12 years:
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/NEWS11/51223001


Also from the first article, looks like the administration is trying to push student loans into fewer hands by increasing the interest rate:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1135215...95.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal

?Congress raised interest rates on the popular Stafford loans to a fixed 6.8%, even if commercial rates are lower, and cut subsidies to lenders. Other affected programs include Medicaid and pension insurance.

Though it isn't the first time the federal government has made cuts in student-aid programs, it is the largest single cut in dollar terms, and it follows years of increased federal support for these programs.
...
The changes come at a time when families have been struggling with skyrocketing tuition bills. After adjusting for inflation, private-college tuition and fees have increased 37% over the past decade, while public tuition has risen 54%. Today, most college students borrow money to pay for college. Two-thirds of undergraduates graduate with debt; among graduating seniors, the average debt load is $19,202, according to an analysis of data from the Department of Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. That doesn't include any debt that their parents might incur.

Here is how the bill will affect two of the most popular student-loan programs:

Stafford loans. These are the most ubiquitous type of student loans, largely because students don't have to demonstrate need in order to secure one. The interest rate on a Stafford loan is variable and reset annually, depending on a formula that looks at prevailing market interest rates. Today, that rate is as low as 4.7%, and students can lock it in thanks to the Federal Consolidation Loan Program, which allows for a one-time opportunity to refinance.

Under the new legislation, the interest rate changes to a fixed rate of 6.8% starting July 1, 2006, on Stafford loans. While that is significantly higher than what students are currently paying, it is only slightly higher than what the average repayment rate has been since 1992-93, when the current interest-rate calculus was instituted, and is still below the current cap of 8.25%.

Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students. Under this program, money is lent directly to parents rather than students. As with Stafford loans, the variable rate is reset every year, though it is capped at 9%.

PLUS loans will become far less attractive under the new law, as interest rates on these loans will be fixed at 8.5% -- near the cap of 9%. Currently, the repayment rate on these loans is set at 6.1%.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Housing affordability has hit a 14-year low
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10532065/#051222

At the end of the first five years of the Bush administration, Housing affordability, one of the two key building blocks of the American Dream, has hit a 14-year low, according to the National Association of Realtors' Affordability Index, a widely followed measure of the average household's ability to buy a home at current interest rates. In some areas, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Miami, housing affordability has dropped to levels not seen since the early to mid-1980s, according to mortgage giant Fannie Mae.
...
Housing affordability fell nearly 9% in the third-quarter from the same period a year earlier, according to an analysis prepared for The Wall Street Journal by Moody's Economy.com, a unit of Moody's Corp., which adjusted the NAR Affordability Index for seasonal variations. Affordability dropped by more than 20% in nearly two-dozen markets, including Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz., Spokane, Wash., and Orlando and Lakeland, Fla., according to the study. "You have to go back 25 years to find a decline that is as significant on a percentage basis," says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com.

Guess that's why new home sales had the largest drop in 12 years:
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/NEWS11/51223001


Also from the first article, looks like the administration is trying to push student loans into fewer hands by increasing the interest rate:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1135215...95.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal

?Congress raised interest rates on the popular Stafford loans to a fixed 6.8%, even if commercial rates are lower, and cut subsidies to lenders. Other affected programs include Medicaid and pension insurance.

Though it isn't the first time the federal government has made cuts in student-aid programs, it is the largest single cut in dollar terms, and it follows years of increased federal support for these programs.
...
The changes come at a time when families have been struggling with skyrocketing tuition bills. After adjusting for inflation, private-college tuition and fees have increased 37% over the past decade, while public tuition has risen 54%. Today, most college students borrow money to pay for college. Two-thirds of undergraduates graduate with debt; among graduating seniors, the average debt load is $19,202, according to an analysis of data from the Department of Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. That doesn't include any debt that their parents might incur.

Here is how the bill will affect two of the most popular student-loan programs:

Stafford loans. These are the most ubiquitous type of student loans, largely because students don't have to demonstrate need in order to secure one. The interest rate on a Stafford loan is variable and reset annually, depending on a formula that looks at prevailing market interest rates. Today, that rate is as low as 4.7%, and students can lock it in thanks to the Federal Consolidation Loan Program, which allows for a one-time opportunity to refinance.

Under the new legislation, the interest rate changes to a fixed rate of 6.8% starting July 1, 2006, on Stafford loans. While that is significantly higher than what students are currently paying, it is only slightly higher than what the average repayment rate has been since 1992-93, when the current interest-rate calculus was instituted, and is still below the current cap of 8.25%.

Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students. Under this program, money is lent directly to parents rather than students. As with Stafford loans, the variable rate is reset every year, though it is capped at 9%.

PLUS loans will become far less attractive under the new law, as interest rates on these loans will be fixed at 8.5% -- near the cap of 9%. Currently, the repayment rate on these loans is set at 6.1%.

A $20,000 loan at 7% for higher education will more than pay itself over the timespan of ones career. Still seems like a good deal.

 

[conjur]

That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

It is a chunk of change, but it is an investment that will more than pay for itself. And it appears that 20k is still the average debt after leaving school. And no where is there a guarantee that a fresh college graduate is entitled to a new car. Student loans, either made by the goverment or private banks are a good deal, even if the interest rates on both are rising.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

Myabe new graduates should forego the new car and their high profile lifestyle.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It matters, as the debt has not affected GDP growth at all.

And your proof of this is what? So the GDP couldn't have been stronger (or weaker for that matter too) if the debt (deficits) hadn't grown as much as they have? Proof?

It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It matters, as the debt has not affected GDP growth at all.

And your proof of this is what? So the GDP couldn't have been stronger (or weaker for that matter too) if the debt (deficits) hadn't grown as much as they have? Proof?

It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

If it "could have been stronger", how do you know that it wasn't impeded?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

If it "could have been stronger", how do you know that it wasn't impeded?

The GDP currently is growing well above historical averages, debt or no debt. You can't expect much more than that.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

If it "could have been stronger", how do you know that it wasn't impeded?

The GDP currently is growing well above historical averages, debt or no debt. You can't expect much more than that.

So you have no proof that the growth wasn't impeded?

Regardless, the debt needs to be below GDP growth for many years to clean up the mess DC is creating. It's only going to get worse as more "pork" is piled onto the plate as DC has no restraint....or common sense.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

Myabe new graduates should forego the new car and their high profile lifestyle.

Wow.


Just.....wow.



zendari: the most blissful person on earth.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

Myabe new graduates should forego the new car and their high profile lifestyle.

Wow.


Just.....wow.



zendari: the most blissful person on earth.

So you think college grads are entitled to a new car right away after graduation? You complain about people being in debt, but you think a college grad deserves a new car? IF you want the new car lifestyle, you have to be able to afford it. While a college grad will most likely will have greatly increased their earning ability with a degree, it does not mean they can live the lifestyle they want right away.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

If it "could have been stronger", how do you know that it wasn't impeded?

The GDP currently is growing well above historical averages, debt or no debt. You can't expect much more than that.

So you have no proof that the growth wasn't impeded?

Regardless, the debt needs to be below GDP growth for many years to clean up the mess DC is creating. It's only going to get worse as more "pork" is piled onto the plate as DC has no restraint....or common sense.

You are the one saying it would be stronger without the debt, so YOU need to prove proof, not him.

 

[Harkonen]

Once again the desperation of the left wing to cast darkness over light is astounding. There is no objective measurement whereby one can claim with any legitimacy that the American economy is not strong right now. It is simply an empirical fact.

On a more anecdotal level, isn't interesting that the impoverished and deficit-laden citizens of the US have time to sit around on their (probably expensive) computers, most likely with a broadband connection, and argue on a web site about our abject poverty.

Despite the pathetic gaspings of the left, spearheaded by Kerry's "Worst economy since the great depression" foolishness in '04, the ingenuity and resourcefulness of free enterprise liberated by lowered taxation thrives on as it always has.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
It could have been stronger, or weaker. Nevertheless, its clear that the increase in debt hasn't impeded GDP growth.

If it "could have been stronger", how do you know that it wasn't impeded?

The GDP currently is growing well above historical averages, debt or no debt. You can't expect much more than that.

So you have no proof that the growth wasn't impeded?

Regardless, the debt needs to be below GDP growth for many years to clean up the mess DC is creating. It's only going to get worse as more "pork" is piled onto the plate as DC has no restraint....or common sense.

You are the one saying it would be stronger without the debt, so YOU need to prove proof, not him.

Is that right?

And your proof of this is what? So the GDP couldn't have been stronger (or weaker for that matter too) if the debt (deficits) hadn't grown as much as they have? Proof?

I said it could have been weaker or stronger, not stronger. Learn to read before looking like an idiot.

 

[nergee]

bottom line is, the current GDP growth is stronger than it's historical average and we should
focus on keeping it that way......

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a new-car payment for someone freshly graduated from school. Quite a chunk of change. And $20,000 won't cover the costs of most four-year colleges and universities.

Myabe new graduates should forego the new car and their high profile lifestyle.

Wow.


Just.....wow.



zendari: the most blissful person on earth.

So you think college grads are entitled to a new car right away after graduation? You complain about people being in debt, but you think a college grad deserves a new car? IF you want the new car lifestyle, you have to be able to afford it. While a college grad will most likely will have greatly increased their earning ability with a degree, it does not mean they can live the lifestyle they want right away.

Just when I thought your ignorance couldn't be any worse you post that and continue to show off your plumetting IQ. Zen, honestly, where in my post above did I mention that graduates were purchasing new cars? Seriously. Try and engage a few brain cells before trying to post.