Economic Growth Rate Downgraded to Anemic 1.6 Percent in Second Quarter

[Darwin333]

Now there's an illogical statement. Without the stimulus, you'd probably have worse growth/worse job loss.

And Krugman predicted a long time ago that the stimulus needed to be much bigger than what was proposed (he was right).

The same Krugman that thinks that we should have a target of 4% inflation?

 

[Darwin333]

How the hell is that a 'win-win' situation. If the piddling stimulus worked, he would have looked dumb.

If *YOU* had your way, the financial markets would have imploded and we'd be living in some sort of Mad Max dystopian universe right now.

Cats and dogs living together and all that jazz because the big banksters have to eat bad business decissions? Instead we give them a fuckload of money, at the threat of friggen Armageddon, part of which was used to buy up their competition for pennies on the dollar (seems to be a reoccurring theme in the banking industry with the same players coming out on top) and they go from "Mad Max is imminent" to record profits almost overnight? Give me a friggen break, they manufactured the crisis and we covered their bets for them and ensured that they gained HUGE from the crisis THEY manufactured. We also have to let them frontrun, commit blatant and provable fraud, legalized accounting fraud for them, bid rigging, get away with bribery, blatant, and illegal, market manipulation via HFT, flash crashes, bonuses guaranteed by law, and on and on.

We would have been much better off nationalizing the fuckers and selling them off piece by piece. Instead we gave them the money to get even bigger than their already "to big to fail" size. We haven't even reinstated glass-stegal ffs. The banksters own the government outright, both parties, and anyone who objectively looks at the facts is hard pressed to come to a different conclusion.

 

[ProfJohn]

Tracking that single dollar spent through the economic chain shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. For example, that dollar spent at the grocery store in turn helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.

Nice to see that you are finally endorsing trickle down economics.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small Business_7_24_08.pdf

Did you read the whole article you posted? Or only the parts that you like?

Perhaps you should read this part:

An effective stimulus package could include a gas tax holiday, expansion of the
food stamp program, a payroll tax holiday, aid to state governments, extension of
the investment tax incentives, and increased infrastructure spending.

Notice how it goes:
tax cut, targeted spending, tax cut, aid to states, tax cut, increased spending.

Compare what he is suggesting to what we actually got and you will understand why the Obama stimulus was a failure.

What we didn't need was a bigger stimulus, what we needed was a BETTER stimulus. One without all the pork and pay offs and give a ways to Democrat supporters.

 

[umbrella39]

sock puppet

Fixed

 

[PeshakJang]

Economic Growth Rate Downgraded to Anemic 1.6 Percent in Second Quarter
Stimulus worked!

========================================
Disgusting Republicans showing their true colors how they hate the country and wish ill will on the people.

Your asses should be rounded up and kicked out of here. Traitors

Hmm... sounds familiar...

You're doing a heck of a job Bushie

8-7-2006 Jobless claims rise to highest since March 2002

Dave... the original America-hater

 

[PeshakJang]

Fixed

Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to remind us you're an idiot.

 

[umbrella39]

... alts are the sign of a pure genius.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hmm... sounds familiar...



Dave... the original America-hater

You dolt, the difference being Bush has destroyed the economy, Obama is doing all he could to salvage what Bush has destroyed.

But of course you are with the destroyers so you wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Acanthus]

Nice to see that you are finally endorsing trickle down economics.

Err what?

That is not supply-side econ at all.

 

[Budarow]

It is a fact. The stimulus was a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the economic shortfall we were experiencing. It's better than nothing, but it wasn't going to turn the economy around. Krugman called it as soon as it was proposed and he was right, as usual.

The big shot government peeps (Bush, Cheney, Paulson, foreign governments, etc.) and big business people knew all along it wouldn't work, but it stabilzed the world economy long enough to give them ample time to shift their assets around in time to protect their $$$.

And I got a chance to start saving also. I'm still in pretty bad shape though cause I don't earn enough to be able to save for what will be needed in a year or 2.

 

[Budarow]

So what the fuck do we do? More stimulus (aka more debt)? More tax cuts (aka more debt)?

We can try to encourage people to spend all day long but more people have learned they need to save more rather than spend. We can't always use the credit card to bail ourselves out as has been happening the last 10 years.

You provided the 3 essential facts which are the causes of the problem right now. Debt can't save the day this time because the world is basically at its credit limit.

Borrow more $$$ and interest rates will rise. Print more $$$ and interest rates will rise and the local currency fall (inflation). It's the same problem for 95% of the countries in the world.

So, you pretty much answered your own question of "what to do". Save as much $$$ as you can and let the other guy try to do the same. It's every man/country for themselves at this point.

The good ship lolly pop of yesterday is freaking sinking.

 

[Darwin333]

You dolt, the difference being Bush has destroyed the economy, Obama is doing all he could to salvage what Bush has destroyed.

But of course you are with the destroyers so you wouldn't know the difference.

He is doing one hellofa job at making sure the banksters "salvage" all they can while almost everyone else is getting boned. Kinda like Bush did, funny how that works ain't it?

 

[Budarow]

Cats and dogs living together and all that jazz because the big banksters have to eat bad business decissions? Instead we give them a fuckload of money, at the threat of friggen Armageddon, part of which was used to buy up their competition for pennies on the dollar (seems to be a reoccurring theme in the banking industry with the same players coming out on top) and they go from "Mad Max is imminent" to record profits almost overnight? Give me a friggen break, they manufactured the crisis and we covered their bets for them and ensured that they gained HUGE from the crisis THEY manufactured. We also have to let them frontrun, commit blatant and provable fraud, legalized accounting fraud for them, bid rigging, get away with bribery, blatant, and illegal, market manipulation via HFT, flash crashes, bonuses guaranteed by law, and on and on.

We would have been much better off nationalizing the fuckers and selling them off piece by piece. Instead we gave them the money to get even bigger than their already "to big to fail" size. We haven't even reinstated glass-stegal ffs. The banksters own the government outright, both parties, and anyone who objectively looks at the facts is hard pressed to come to a different conclusion.

I think you're 100% correct.

 

[Budarow]

Getting back on topic...Q1, 2011 should be the 1st quarter of the double dip. Once the repubs get more seats in the house and senate, there will be no more stimulus programs aimed to help the middle/working class.

 

[Phokus]

Did you read the whole article you posted? Or only the parts that you like?

Perhaps you should read this part:

Notice how it goes:
tax cut, targeted spending, tax cut, aid to states, tax cut, increased spending.

Compare what he is suggesting to what we actually got and you will understand why the Obama stimulus was a failure.

What we didn't need was a bigger stimulus, what we needed was a BETTER stimulus. One without all the pork and pay offs and give a ways to Democrat supporters.

ProfJohn, are you RETARDED? NONE of those tax cuts are the ones Republicans like. Republicans always want permanent across the board tax cuts or tax cuts that heavily favor the rich to reduce progressive tax cuts. All the tax cuts he mentions are TEMPORARY in nature and highly targeted. Note: Obama pretty much implemented one of the more effective temporary tax cut in his stimulus package that heavily favored the poor/middle class. You get a 400 tax rebate if you're single, 800 if married and it phases out at higher incomes.

Look at how effective your shitacular REPUBLICAN solutions at stimulating the economy are. I'll bold it for you because you apparently don't understand. Republican tax cuts HAVE THE LOWEST MULTIPLIER AFFECT AT STIMULATING THE ECONOMY WHILE LIBERAL SOLUTIONS HAVE THE HIGHEST.

Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26
Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

[b]Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30[/b]

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

 

[Phokus]

Nice to see that you are finally endorsing trickle down economics.

AHAHAHA, food stamps are trickle down economics? Are you that fucking stupid? That's the OPPOSITE of trickle down economics. This is demand side economics where you give money to the poor through food stamps and the money trickles back *UP*. I hope you were making a stupid joke and don't actually believe the tripe you type out.

Also, Non-profjohn, referencing that same study, food stamps and unemployment benefits, the things republicans hate most ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS to stimulating the economy. Look how wrong and stupid you are:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Congress and the White House consider a $150 billion stimulus package that includes tax rebates and tax incentives for business, a report released Tuesday suggests that other methods would do a better job of infusing money into the flagging economy and doing it fast.

The industry research firm Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.
Stimulus proponents need to navigate Senate

Tracking that single dollar spent through the economic chain shows what economists call the ripple effect, Zandi said. For example, that dollar spent at the grocery store in turn helps to pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, pays the truckers who haul the food and produce cross-country, and finally goes to the farmer who grows the crops.

The report pointed to expanding unemployment benefits as the program that gets the next biggest bang for the buck. That's because, although the unemployed are already getting checks, they need to spend the money. For every dollar spent here, the economy would see a return of $1.64, Zandi said.

Expanding the food-stamp and the unemployment insurance programs are not in the current stimulus package expected to be passed by the House. In the Senate, the Finance Committee is now working on its own version of a stimulus package that might include extending unemployment benefits and other options.

Finally, Moody's report says business incentives such as tax breaks for buying new equipment - so-called accelerated depreciation - would give the least bang for the buck and potentially provide the slowest infusion of money. A dollar spent there would generate only 33 cents in the economy because, Zandi said, it takes longer for businesses to implement any benefit received.

 

[charrison]

The same Krugman that thinks that we should have a target of 4% inflation?

The same krugman that thought pumping money into housing was a good idea.

 

[PeshakJang]

Also, Non-profjohn, referencing that same study, food stamps and unemployment benefits, the things republicans hate most ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS to stimulating the economy. Look how wrong and stupid you are:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm

Compare what Zandi said 2.5 years ago with what he said last week:

He also says that eventually, demographics win. Right now, Americans are spending under their demographic needs. For instance, Zandi estimates they need 15.5 million cars a year – based on demographic changes such as kids going off to college and graduating to wheels of their own. But consumers are holding back, buying only 11 million. At some point, auto sales will “rocket higher.”


But expect America’s exports, not its consumers, to lead the way to a healthy economy, he says. Emerging markets such as Russia and Brazil will buy more traditional US goods, such as aircraft, machine tools, and computer equipment. They’ll also need American services: accounting, legal, management, and financial advice, as well as architecture, media, and entertainment.


Meanwhile, Zandi says, big business is “strong,” credit is improving “rapidly,” and political uncertainty over major reforms is beginning to abate – though he’d like to see Congress and the White House quickly come to a compromise on what to do with the expiring tax cuts of the Bush era. His advice: Don't raise anyone's taxes in 2011; after that, in 2012, 2013, or 2014, when the economy's getting stronger, then you can raise taxes on upper incomes.

Wouldn't that be best served by investing stimulus dollars in American business?

Unemployment benefits and food stamp programs were expanded. People continue to lose jobs. The notion that giving dollars to the lower income brackets will cause more to be created is premised on their spending. Well guess what? People aren't spending. After years of overspending, people are getting their personal debt under control, scaling back their spending, and holding on to money more. This is something that has changed over the last 2-3 years, and will continue to have an effect on the economy for years to come.

People are spending only what they need to, which is a lot less than it used to be.

 

[nonlnear]

And without the industrial revolution, we would have sunk into another mini-ice age.

Seriously... the "it would have been so much worse" argument isn't working anymore. Good luck campaigning on that.

No, pick the right moment in history and you can ride it for decades - especially when objecting entails "dishonoring" the sacrifice of veterans. (By dishonoring I mean being honest about the reasons that those sacrifices were demanded, not disparaging the individuals.) Plenty of Americans love to believe that their boys never die in vain. It helps them sleep at night to think they didn't sacrifice their children solely for vanity and greed.

 

[ProfJohn]

ProfJohn, are you RETARDED? NONE of those tax cuts are the ones Republicans like. Republicans always want permanent across the board tax cuts or tax cuts that heavily favor the rich to reduce progressive tax cuts. All the tax cuts he mentions are TEMPORARY in nature and highly targeted. Note: Obama pretty much implemented one of the more effective temporary tax cut in his stimulus package that heavily favored the poor/middle class. You get a 400 tax rebate if you're single, 800 if married and it phases out at higher incomes.

Look at how effective your shitacular REPUBLICAN solutions at stimulating the economy are. I'll bold it for you because you apparently don't understand. Republican tax cuts HAVE THE LOWEST MULTIPLIER AFFECT AT STIMULATING THE ECONOMY WHILE LIBERAL SOLUTIONS HAVE THE HIGHEST.

Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26
Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

[b]Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30[/b]

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Did it occur to you that the reason the permanent tax cut section has the lowest modifier is because those tax cuts are already in effect and have already done what they were suppose to do years ago.

Taking a tax cut that already exists and extending it is not going to produce a huge economic gain. But ending a tax and thus raising taxes will certainly have a HUGE negative effect on the economy.

What we need is a chart that compared the positive effect of extending the tax cuts vs the negative effect of letting them end.

BTW the Bush tax cuts actually favored the poor. Look at the tax cut as a percentage of income and you will see that the people at the bottom got a much bigger cut in their tax bill. Thanks to Bush millions of Americans who paid taxes under Clinton pay no income taxes at all today!

Also, if the tax cuts 'favored' the rich then why do the rich now pay a higher percentage of incomes taxes than before the cuts despite the fact that their overall share of income is nearly the same as it was pre-tax cut?

 

[Viditor]

I'm confused...
GDP rate in Q2 2008 was 0.6%
GDP rate in Q2 2009 was -0.7%
GDP rate in Q2 2010 is 1.6%

Why are people upset? I see no interuption of the recovery...

 

[nick1985]

I'm confused...
GDP rate in Q2 2008 was 0.6%
GDP rate in Q2 2009 was -0.7%
GDP rate in Q2 2010 is 1.6%

Why are people upset? I see no interuption of the recovery...

Why are you so confused?

You do not see the downward trend that has people concerned??

 

[PeshakJang]

"I have never been more confident, that our country is headed the right direction."

Summer of Recovery! Wooooo!!!

 

[Viditor]

Why are you so confused?



You do not see the downward trend that has people concerned??

Nope...as a professional investor, I can tell you that economic trends tend to be cyclical. The smartest investors will judge a quarter based on the same quarter from last year or the year before. QonQ can be interesting, but is usually less informative.