Economic Growth now even slower than expected (2012 and 2013 estimates revised)

Quote from Hawk2007 : Are you honestly trying to suggest or imply there are ZERO far-left billionaires who influence the American political scene?

Hollywood apparently is apparently made up of right wingers in Larry's book.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Second, far-right billionaires? The Koch Brothers? Never knew who they were until the far-left kept bringing them up at every breath.

Quote from larrymoencurly : That may say something the deficiencies of your preferred information sources because in the 1970s they started the Cato Institute, and it's been influential since the Reagan presidency . The Koch brothers alone have contributed $100M to partisan political activities over the past 5-10 years, and it doesn't take many more far-right billionaires like them to essentially buy a political party.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Are you honestly trying to suggest or imply there are ZERO far-left billionaires who influence the American political scene?

You're being ridiculous, and you'll probably eventually work George Soros into the debate.

Look at where the money's come from: for Wisconsin recall race alone, it was about 8:1 right-wing right wing sources, and a higher proportion of the right-wing money has been secret, unlike Soros'.

Quote from Hawk2007 : It just amazes me that you seem to imply that people have no right or justification to be upset with this administration or Obamacare.

Quote from larrymoencurly : You'd have a point if I always praised Obama, but I've criticized him and the Democrats many times, including today. I can't help if you don't read everything I write, although I wouldn't blame you if you ignored it.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Yes, you have criticized Democrats many times. Often, your criticism is rooted in a form of a praise. How do you accomplish this seemingly contradictory statement? Easily.... "The democrats are failing to run an effective campaign in 2012, because gosh-darnit, the competition has stooped to such a low level, the democrats are just unaccustomed to this level of intellectual dishonesty. So, the democrats just get a big fat "F" in my book."

Wrong. I've blamed Democrats' losses mostly on Democrats. Democrats just don't realize that politics is war, and nothing short of total victory is acceptable. But Obama thinks he can reach out to the other side, but they've told him they'll compromise only if he agrees to at least 100% of their demands.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Personally, I see right through it. See you at the voting booth in November.

You know what they say about the person at the poker table who boasts that he sees through everyone.

Quote from Hawk2007 : Also, don't piss on my intelligence and pretend that Democrats are just supported by blue-collar, middle America and have trouble fighting the deep pockets of the GOP and Tea Party. There are many, many millionaires and billionaires sympathetic to far-left causes. But, feel free to keep going. Eventually I'll get tired of calling you and everyone else on here out on it and move along.

I would never piss on your alleged intelligence, and when have I ever come anywhere close to even implying that Democrats don't get most of their money from the 1%? OTOH I've repeatedly said we need to get big money out of politics and limit donations to $100 a person.

Quote from Hawk2007 : I do have a legitimate question for you..... Why do you use language like "tea-bagger" and then get upset when someone compares the current Obama leadership to Karl Marx?

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Interesting question. Perhaps people feel the license to use a vulgar term to describe the tea party movement b/c it is full of common (aka vulgar) people.

What vulgar term?

Your comment is surprising because previously you've always stayed above the fray.

Quote from sanfran22 : If anything it was the war that got us out of the Great Depression. FDR's policies actually hindered the recovery and have a great deal to do with what we are dealing with today. I'm tired of all this stimulus garbage. Let's just keep printing and throwing money at the problem and maybe something will stick. It's a band-aid covering up a larger problem. Libs don't care about band-aids though because they can always raise the "riches" taxes to make up for it. Yeah, that's gonna work well.....

Quote from andyfico : Well said. It seems to me that everytime the stimulus money starts to run out, the economy starts slowing. To me this indicates that the economy is being perpetually propped up by the gov't. how long can this go on? At a certain point, we're going to run out of money or dig a hole too big to get out of.

Actually what Sanfran22 said about FDR's policies and the Great Depression is completely false propaganda from Amity Schlaes' book, The Forgotten Man. GDP increased because of FDR's policies, except in 1937, when he put the brakes on the stimulus program and balanced the federal budget. Just coincidentally, 1937 is the year Schlaes' book concentrates on. When FDR reverted to his previous policies, the economy again expanded. Similarly, our current expansion is stalling because the FDR haters are getting their way.

Quote from andyfico : Well said. It seems to me that everytime the stimulus money starts to run out, the economy starts slowing. To me this indicates that the economy is being perpetually propped up by the gov't. how long can this go on? At a certain point, we're going to run out of money or dig a hole too big to get out of.

Actually I've noticed this also and it's quite awkward. All the economists know the economy is just barely hanging on. We expect a certain amount of government funds to help things along. Things get nasty when we're receiving the funding but we continue to see little increase in sales/jobs etc.. which is what we have seen the past several months. What we have right now (and I stated this numerous time w/in the past 2 years) we have an economy built on a house of cards. You can prop it up w/ government assistance but we all know that is merely a band aid. Bottom line is that the companies want some certainty in what they'll see in the future. Obama has pushed through a number of issues at the drop of the hat and that scares the hell out of large companies. Maybe if congress all sat on at least a similar page there wouldn't be so much confusion.. instead we have two parties on completely opposite sides of the table. To may variables, to much uncertainty, to much confusion to go investing in tomorrow.

Quote from DJPlayer : All the economists know the economy is just barely hanging on. We expect a certain amount of government funds to help things along. Things get nasty when we're receiving the funding but we continue to see little increase in sales/jobs etc.. which is what we have seen the past several months. What we have right now (and I stated this numerous time w/in the past 2 years) we have an economy built on a house of cards. You can prop it up w/ government assistance but we all know that is merely a band aid. Bottom line is that the companies want some certainty in what they'll see in the future. Obama has pushed through a number of issues at the drop of the hat and that scares the hell out of large companies.

Obama is so anti-capitalist that corporate profits are higher than ever, even as a proportion of GDP.

Stimulus isn't a bandage needed to prop up the economy forever but is needed (or desired) only until the economy regains momentum, at least if the slump isn't structural but cyclical, and fortunately this one is cyclical, caused by our financial system allowed to run wild and by the reckless fiscal and monetary policies implemented earlier this century, by the politicians you favor. And the economy isn't improving as quickly as it should because your politicians are placing the November elections ahead of patriotism.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Obama is so anti-capitalist that corporate profits are higher than ever, even as a proportion of GDP.

see now you're just using blind talking points from the MSM. Unlike the Government when profits fell, corporates did exactly as Obama stated he "would" do, tighten the belt. Corporations then learned to do more with less. They used less employees to do the same or more work, there was a certain amount of outsourcing done also. They so to speak trimmed the fat (as government claimed they would). Keep in mind this is at a global level also.. the corporations you see counted are not mom and pop shops or even local banks.. these are S&P 500 corporations. Stimulus allowed low income people to continue w/ services and purchasing, companies trimmed expenses, thus more profit. Now you have companies with cash on hand, but a president looking to raise taxes in some area, morph health care, give out work visas etc.. all at the drop of a hat. Billion dollar corporations don't make decisions in the face of uncertainty. How many people bought houses 3 years ago thinking it was a bottom. (yeah they got screwed). refinanced 3 years ago thinking interest was at it's lowest (again screwed). bought a new house while their company was downsizing.. (yet again). You don't make enormous investments when you're staring at the unknown.

Quote : Stimulus isn't a bandage needed to prop up the economy forever but is needed (or desired) only until the economy regains momentum, at least if the slump isn't structural but cyclical, and fortunately this one is cyclical, caused by our financial system allowed to run wild and by the reckless fiscal and monetary policies implemented earlier this century, by the politicians you favor. And the economy isn't improving as quickly as it should because your politicians are placing the November elections ahead of patriotism.

we're in the process of adding more working to an enormous unemployment situation? Because that's what we need.. more unemployed workers. In the midst of one of the slowest recoveries every you know what we need.. healthcare reform and penalties implemented on those that do no comply.. that should pick up the pace?? These stimulus threw money at the public sector and one of the largest area was road construction etc.. better roads w/ fewer people able to drive cars.. Obama has admitted numerous mistakes as is. Hell he even said he wanted $5 gas, but preferred it occur more gradually than it did. Well now we have cheap gas but no jobs.. What got done in the first year plus when Obama had so much backing from congress? Cash for clunkers?

Quote from DJPlayer : see now you're just using blind talking points from the MSM. Unlike the Government when profits fell, corporates did exactly as Obama stated he "would" do, tighten the belt. Corporations then learned to do more with less. They used less employees to do the same or more work, there was a certain amount of outsourcing done also. They so to speak trimmed the fat (as government claimed they would). Keep in mind this is at a global level also.. the corporations you see counted are not mom and pop shops or even local banks.. these are S&P 500 corporations. Stimulus allowed low income people to continue w/ services and purchasing, companies trimmed expenses, thus more profit. Now you have companies with cash on hand, but a president looking to raise taxes in some area, morph health care, give out work visas etc.. all at the drop of a hat. Billion dollar corporations don't make decisions in the face of uncertainty. How many people bought houses 3 years ago thinking it was a bottom. (yeah they got screwed). refinanced 3 years ago thinking interest was at it's lowest (again screwed). bought a new house while their company was downsizing.. (yet again). You don't make enormous investments when you're staring at the unknown. we're in the process of adding more working to an enormous unemployment situation? Because that's what we need.. more unemployed workers. In the midst of one of the slowest recoveries every you know what we need.. healthcare reform and penalties implemented on those that do no comply.. that should pick up the pace?? These stimulus threw money at the public sector and one of the largest area was road construction etc.. better roads w/ fewer people able to drive cars.. Obama has admitted numerous mistakes as is. Hell he even said he wanted $5 gas, but preferred it occur more gradually than it did. Well now we have cheap gas but no jobs.. What got done in the first year plus when Obama had so much backing from congress? Cash for clunkers?

But imagine how much better off these companies would be if they employed the proper government response to this economic crisis we find ourselves in. They should have borrowed and spent their way out of the crisis. All that debt on their balance sheets would really help them right now.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Stimulus isn't a bandage needed to prop up the economy forever but is needed (or desired) only until the economy regains momentum, at least if the slump isn't structural but cyclical, and fortunately this one is cyclical, caused by our financial system allowed to run wild and by the reckless fiscal and monetary policies implemented earlier this century, by the politicians you favor. And the economy isn't improving as quickly as it should because your politicians are placing the November elections ahead of patriotism.

That's because the "stimulus" hasn't been and still isn't about helping the economy for the good of the people, it's about keeping insolvent WS casino's front doors open so "investors" can still come in gamble meanwhile keeping the back door locked so no toxic ooze leaks out.

Funny how the volume on the NYSE is at 15 year lows despite the $T's yet the bonus's seem to keep rolling in. "And the GS employee of the week is Fred! Fred managed to produce more fraud in Q1 than entire department combined. Guess we'll have to come up with some new fraud schemes cause this is getting too easy...*everyone laughs*"

I mean, you can tell how desperate they are to preserve the smoke screen if they concoct something as silly as "sterilized QE."

And I just love this game they play by putting Dimon in front of the House and Congress (not sworn in BTW) and go back and forth insinuating who's fault it is. Geithner does the exact same thing when questioned. And, of course, good ole Ben - he just sits there petting his little dog, quivering some jibber jabber to keep the music going for another month, I mean week, eeer I mean hour.

One of the most overlooked Mayan prophesies was the advent of the modern day printing press's ability to distort the time-space continuum and expand the Universe at will, thus adding more time and escaping the realities of the present at the push of a button.

Quote from larrymoencurly : What vulgar term? Your comment is surprising because previously you've always stayed above the fray.

Tea bagger is a vulgar term. If you don't know its connotation then I suggest a trip to urban dictionary.

Quote from DJPlayer : Actually I've noticed this also and it's quite awkward. All the economists know the economy is just barely hanging on. We expect a certain amount of government funds to help things along. Things get nasty when we're receiving the funding but we continue to see little increase in sales/jobs etc.. which is what we have seen the past several months. What we have right now (and I stated this numerous time w/in the past 2 years) we have an economy built on a house of cards. You can prop it up w/ government assistance but we all know that is merely a band aid. Bottom line is that the companies want some certainty in what they'll see in the future. Obama has pushed through a number of issues at the drop of the hat and that scares the hell out of large companies. Maybe if congress all sat on at least a similar page there wouldn't be so much confusion.. instead we have two parties on completely opposite sides of the table. To may variables, to much uncertainty, to much confusion to go investing in tomorrow.

The point of 'stimulus' is to merely set the stage for more 'stimulus' 2 years later, and thus for 'stimulus' to become permanent.

We already bailed out the teachers unions once in 2009 despite the fact that the United States has a massive excess of teachers and a massive excess of local government education spending.

They wanted another bailout in 2010 and got it. By 2011, the 'temporary' stimulus ran out and the Democrats wanted to pay off their voting constituency by ordering yet another round of stimulus.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Actually what Sanfran22 said about FDR's policies and the Great Depression is completely false propaganda from Amity Schlaes' book, The Forgotten Man. GDP increased because of FDR's policies, except in 1937, when he put the brakes on the stimulus program and balanced the federal budget. Just coincidentally, 1937 is the year Schlaes' book concentrates on. When FDR reverted to his previous policies, the economy again expanded. Similarly, our current expansion is stalling because the FDR haters are getting their way.

You're lying. Federal spending remains at record highs, and is exactly where it was projected to be in 2009.

Quote from larrymoencurly : Obama is so anti-capitalist that corporate profits are higher than ever, even as a proportion of GDP.

Quote from DJPlayer : see now you're just using blind talking points from the MSM. Unlike the Government when profits fell, corporates did exactly as Obama stated he "would" do, tighten the belt. Corporations then learned to do more with less. They used less employees to do the same or more work, there was a certain amount of outsourcing done also. They so to speak trimmed the fat (as government claimed they would). Keep in mind this is at a global level also.. the corporations you see counted are not mom and pop shops or even local banks.. these are S&P 500 corporations. Stimulus allowed low income people to continue w/ services and purchasing, companies trimmed expenses, thus more profit. Now you have companies with cash on hand, but a president looking to raise taxes in some area, morph health care, give out work visas etc.. all at the drop of a hat.

Some of your details are right, but your overall conclusion is as wrong as your assumption that I use MSM talking points (whatever those are).

Quote from larrymoencurly : Stimulus isn't a bandage needed to prop up the economy forever but is needed (or desired) only until the economy regains momentum, at least if the slump isn't structural but cyclical, and fortunately this one is cyclical, caused by our financial system allowed to run wild and by the reckless fiscal and monetary policies implemented earlier this century, by the politicians you favor. And the economy isn't improving as quickly as it should because your politicians are placing the November elections ahead of patriotism.

Quote from DJPlayer : we're in the process of adding more working to an enormous unemployment situation? Because that's what we need.. more unemployed workers.

You're missing a major piece of economic knowledge if you believe that because spending on unemployment tends to return more government revenue that it costs.

Quote from DJPlayer : In the midst of one of the slowest recoveries every you know what we need.. healthcare reform and penalties implemented on those that do no comply.. that should pick up the pace?? These stimulus threw money at the public sector and one of the largest area was road construction etc.. better roads w/ fewer people able to drive cars.. Obama has admitted numerous mistakes as is. Hell he even said he wanted $5 gas, but preferred it occur more gradually than it did. Well now we have cheap gas but no jobs.. What got done in the first year plus when Obama had so much backing from congress? Cash for clunkers?

Obama didn't want $5/gallon gasoline, and fixing roads is a good idea because we've really let our highway system fall apart, and a time of high unemployment means more people are available to do the work. But Congress basically rejected that sensible program.

Health care costs 17% of GDP, by far the highest in the developed world, and you people didn't want to do anything about it, at least nothing effective.

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Tea bagger is a vulgar term. If you don't know its connotation then I suggest a trip to urban dictionary.

You made the claim; so you provide the proof, right here, directly, rather than stoop to the old "you can look it up" tactic.

I can't imagine "tea bagger" being used as a vulgarity, except by tea purists who insist on pouring boiling water through a screen rather than dip tea bags into water. But in the context of politics, calling a TEA Party member or sympathizer a "tea bagger" may be disrespectful but no more so than calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party"; it's hardly demonization.

Quote from Krazen1211 : The point of 'stimulus' is to merely set the stage for more 'stimulus' 2 years later, and thus for 'stimulus' to become permanent.

I've read about a second state stimulus (which should have been passed), but I've never seen anything regarding a permanent stimulus. Can you cite something about that?

Quote from Krazen1211 : We already bailed out the teachers unions once in 2009 despite the fact that the United States has a massive excess of teachers and a massive excess of local government education spending.

Where's this surplus of teachers? Class size increases indicate you're wrong, and spending on education has been flat or slightly declining:

Quote from larrymoencurly : Actually what Sanfran22 said about FDR's policies and the Great Depression is completely false propaganda from Amity Schlaes' book, The Forgotten Man. GDP increased because of FDR's policies, except in 1937, when he put the brakes on the stimulus program and balanced the federal budget. Just coincidentally, 1937 is the year Schlaes' book concentrates on. When FDR reverted to his previous policies, the economy again expanded. Similarly, our current expansion is stalling because the FDR haters are getting their way.

Quote from Krazen1211 : You're lying. Federal spending remains at record highs, and is exactly where it was projected to be in 2009.

How am I lying about the effects of federal stimulus in the 1930s or recently? Explain the chart of Great Depression GDP, especially 1937, the year when Roosevelt virtually balanced the budget and cause a downturn?

Your accusation of lying seems to be for something I didn't bring up. It would be as if I called you a liar for saying the Earth was flat when you said no such thing.