Real GDP increased at 2.1% Annualized Rate in Q4

[transporter]

Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.1 percent. The GDP estimate released today is based on...

www.bea.gov

See any difference in the height of the bars of the last 3 quarters and the 4 quarters in 2016? Remember, all you ignorati types complained how horrible the economy was in 2016 and how horrible it had been managed under the previous administration!

Real GDP increased 2.3% in 2019. Not 3%, not 4%, not 5%, not 6%.

And just to restate the stunningly obvious again:

1. We are running a $1 trillion federal deficit. Deficits juice the economy.

2. We implemented a massive tax cut---but only for the wealthiest. (business investment has been negative in each of the last 3 quarters. Hey Gilligan, you want to explain again how tax cuts would result in a massive business spending boom?)

3. The Federal Reserve has interest rates back down to extremely low levels.

All of the above are intended to juice the economy....and the best we can do is the same level of growth we have had for the past 10 years. This is what Dear Leader and his cult refer to as the "best economy ever"!

Full release and tables are here: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2020-01/gdp4q19_adv.pdf

 

[CPUSA]

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Let's just get the "But the stock market is doing awesome!" and "My 401k never looked better!" comments out of the way.

 

[itsbob]

Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2019 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.1 percent. The GDP estimate released today is based on...

www.bea.gov

View attachment 144799

See any difference in the height of the bars of the last 3 quarters and the 4 quarters in 2016? Remember, all you ignorati types complained how horrible the economy was in 2016 and how horrible it had been managed under the previous administration!

Real GDP increased 2.3% in 2019. Not 3%, not 4%, not 5%, not 6%.

And just to restate the stunningly obvious again:

1. We are running a $1 trillion federal deficit. Deficits juice the economy.

2. We implemented a massive tax cut---but only for the wealthiest. (business investment has been negative in each of the last 3 quarters. Hey Gilligan, you want to explain again how tax cuts would result in a massive business spending boom?)

3. The Federal Reserve has interest rates back down to extremely low levels.

All of the above are intended to juice the economy....and the best we can do is the same level of growth we have had for the past 10 years. This is what Dear Leader and his cult refer to as the "best economy ever"!

Full release and tables are here: https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2020-01/gdp4q19_adv.pdf

Awwww... your brain cell must be lonely this morning..

How much of that Deficit can be attributed to OBAMACARE and subsidizing Health Care and Health Insurance??

 

[itsbob]

Let's just get the "But the stock market is doing awesome!" and "My 401k never looked better!" comments out of the way.

AND 3% interest rates on home mortgages.. 4% on car loans, couple with 401 and IRAs making 20% annually..

Deficit has no impact on me individually,.. but THESE do.. and these are what matter most. I'm not going to vote or NOT vote for anyone based on a deficit, when they can impact my life with numbers like this.

Which leads to the next questions.. what was the average interest for a home loan in 2016? Auto Loan??

How much were 401ks and IRAs making a year in interest in 2015/ 2016??

I know, none of that matters to you, just numbers that LOOK bad, that have no real impact on American families..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Awwww... your brain cell must be lonely this morning..

How much of that Deficit can be attributed to OBAMACARE and subsidizing Health Care and Health Insurance??

Congress repealed the Cadillac tax, Health Insurance Tax, and Medical Device Taxes associated with Obamacare. It won't take effect until next year and 2022, but the taxes actually reduced the deficit because it was revenue. Had everything happened the way Congress (Dems) intended, the CBO estimated Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It's obviously been changed and gutted over the years and that's fine by me (be cool with me if it went away for good) and is no longer remotely deficit neutral and now that the tax revenue intended to be from Obamacare is goneand the deficit related to it will rise, but not necessarily because of the law itself, but the changes to it enacted by a Congress that was hell bent on repealing it at one point.

The repeal of the taxes mentioned about will add an estimated $373 billion over 10 years.

I'm not going to vote or NOT vote for anyone based on a deficit

Fair enough, but you agree that it's okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?

 

[Barabbas]

In 1934, GDP growth rate was 10.8%.
In 1936, it was 12.9%.
In 1941 is was 17.7, '42 was 18.9, and '43 was 17.0%

It's much easier to go up by 10% when you're going from $817,000,000 to $906,000,000. A $100,000,000 raise was over 10%.

From '14 to '15, Obama had the best year of growth while he was in office - 2.9%. Real GDP rose $500,000,000. If you look at '16 to '18, real GDP rose a total of $1,000,000,000, or an average of 2.7% per year. From '08 to '15, real GDP rose $1,799,000,000, or 1.6% per year, on average.

Fun with statistics and percentages. You could say that Trump has, thus far, had a 1,688% better growth in GDP than Obama, if you really like playing with statistics and percentages. Fun stuff!!

 

[itsbob]

Fair enough, but you agree that it's okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?

Sure, but explain how a deficit makes the House fiscally Reckless.. since budgets begin life there, not in the Oval Office.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Sure, but explain how a deficit makes the House fiscally Reckless.. since budgets begin life there, not in the Oval Office.

You want an explanation about how it's reckless to spend more than you bring in?

Budgets actually begin with a Presidential budget proposal. There's obviously no requirement for Congress to follow that, but it points out how someone who ran on "eliminating the debt in 8 years" isn't really interested in that and points to a Congress who largely doesn't care about it either, despite each side complaining about it when their opposite party is in the White House.

Which is why I said "anyone in government" and didn't limit it to the House or the President.

 

[itsbob]

You want an explanation about how it's reckless to spend more than you bring in?

Budgets actually begin with a Presidential budget proposal. There's obviously no requirement for Congress to follow that, but it points out how someone who ran on "eliminating the debt in 8 years" isn't really interested in that and points to a Congress who largely doesn't care about it either, despite each side complaining about it when their opposite party is in the White House.

Which is why I said "anyone in government" and didn't limit it to the House or the President.

You say it's reckless.. yet how many decades have we been doing it?? We're still here, and our economy is the best in the world.. can't be too bad.

 

[itsbob]

In September 1789, Alexander Hamilton, then-Secretary of the Treasury, negotiated terms with the Bank of New York and the Bank of North America to borrow $19,608.81 to address shortfalls within the U.S. budget

1835, less than six years after assuming office, Jackson paid off the entire national debt by curtailing government spending and selling off federal lands. This is the only time in U.S history that the country's total debt was completely paid off.

1835... the lasat time we didn't have a debt... 1789, our first deficit, yet here we are..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You say it's reckless.. yet how many decades have we been doing it?? We're still here, and our economy is the best in the world.. can't be too bad.

It's reckless to drive 100 mph everywhere. Just because you haven't wrecked your car yet doesn't make it any less reckless, does it?

 

[Toxick]

 

[CPUSA]

Congress repealed the Cadillac tax, Health Insurance Tax, and Medical Device Taxes associated with Obamacare. It won't take effect until next year and 2022, but the taxes actually reduced the deficit because it was revenue. Had everything happened the way Congress (Dems) intended, the CBO estimated Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It's obviously been changed and gutted over the years and that's fine by me (be cool with me if it went away for good) and is no longer remotely deficit neutral and now that the tax revenue intended to be from Obamacare is goneand the deficit related to it will rise, but not necessarily because of the law itself, but the changes to it enacted by a Congress that was hell bent on repealing it at one point.

The repeal of the taxes mentioned about will add an estimated $373 billion over 10 years.



Fair enough, but you agree that it's okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?

So...just to summarize what you said...

 

[CPUSA]

Congress repealed the Cadillac tax, Health Insurance Tax, and Medical Device Taxes associated with Obamacare. It won't take effect until next year and 2022, but the taxes actually reduced the deficit because it was revenue. Had everything happened the way Congress (Dems) intended, the CBO estimated Obamacare would reduce the deficit. It's obviously been changed and gutted over the years and that's fine by me (be cool with me if it went away for good) and is no longer remotely deficit neutral and now that the tax revenue intended to be from Obamacare is goneand the deficit related to it will rise, but not necessarily because of the law itself, but the changes to it enacted by a Congress that was hell bent on repealing it at one point.

The repeal of the taxes mentioned about will add an estimated $373 billion over 10 years.



Fair enough, but you agree that it's okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?

So again, to recap...

 

[itsbob]

It's reckless to drive 100 mph everywhere. Just because you haven't wrecked your car yet doesn't make it any less reckless, does it?

Yet that didn't answer the question did it??

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yet that didn't answer the question did it??

If deficits don't matter, then what's the problem with all the Dem "free stuff" being promised? I mean, govt. can just print its own money and deficits don't matter. I mean, so far so good, nothing can go wrong because it hasn't yet, right?

Admittedly, it's nice seeing a Republican finally admit what most of us already know. Republicans don't care about the budget, and despite decades of trying to make everyone believe they care about fiscal responsibility when, in reality, they've done nothing but raise the budget.

So if you can't see, off the bat, that debt weakens private investment, drives up inflation, reduces personal income, inches govt. toward insolvency, and is generally irresponsible, then nothing I'm going to tell you will change your mind. Like Trump said, "who the hell cares about a budget", right? I may go out and buy a car or two, maybe a boat, RV, etc. If I keep paying the minimum payment, it's all good, right?

On the bright side, this idea that debt doesn't matter and you aren't going to vote for anyone based on it is something you and Democrats have in common.

 

[Barabbas]

If deficits don't matter, then what's the problem with all the Dem "free stuff" being promised? I mean, govt. can just print its own money and deficits don't matter. I mean, so far so good, nothing can go wrong because it hasn't yet, right?

Admittedly, it's nice seeing a Republican finally admit what most of us already know. Republicans don't care about the budget, and despite decades of trying to make everyone believe they care about fiscal responsibility when, in reality, they've done nothing but raise the budget.

So if you can't see, off the bat, that debt weakens private investment, drives up inflation, reduces personal income, inches govt. toward insolvency, and is generally irresponsible, then nothing I'm going to tell you will change your mind. Like Trump said, "who the hell cares about a budget", right? I may go out and buy a car or two, maybe a boat, RV, etc. If I keep paying the minimum payment, it's all good, right?

On the bright side, this idea that debt doesn't matter and you aren't going to vote for anyone based on it is something you and Democrats have in common.

You're answering a question not asked, and not answering the question asked.

The question you were asked was how deficits make the White House "reckless", given that spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and you're answering why deficits are bad.

The question raised by Bob is a good one, as we've been hearing for months now how the power of the purse is ONLY the responsibility of Congress. You and I (and any thinking person) knows that is not completely true, regardless of how many times Democrats say it, but it has been their argument as to how Trump had no authority of his own (he did, but again, truth matters not to Democrats) to stall the money because the power of the purse ordered the executive to do something, and he damned well better do it (he did, but again, truth matters not to Democrats).

The White House has a vote equivalent to just shy of 2/3 of Congress, in theory, because it takes that many to override his vote. The assumption is that both the White House and both houses of Congress will negotiate budgets and appropriations bills in good faith. None of them do, as evidenced by the recent government shutdown because Congress refused to properly fund border security and the White House said that was reason to shut down the rest of government.

We can argue that the Congress should have simply funded the rest of government functions and negotiated that item with the White House individually, or that the White House should have vetoed a bill if it made it to him. The reality is, party politics made it such that no bill ever reached the White House to veto, and Congress blamed the White House for that.

In other words, it seems your argument is that the White House could veto bad bills, and therefore the White House is reckless for signing omnibus appropriations bills that cause huge deficit spending would be valid if it weren't for reality, which is party politics stops the White House from even getting a vote, and biased news reporting and biased views on government don't put Congress responsible for the problem. If Californians understood the problem, Nancy Pelosi would never be reelected, let alone Speaker. If the common man understood the problem, Chuck Schumer would have no ability to shut down bills that would be approved by >50% of the Senate by not invoking cloture. Instead, we have people who blame the president for things Congress doesn't do properly.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The question you were asked was how deficits make the White House "reckless", given that spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and you're answering why deficits are bad.

I never claimed they made the WH reckless, so if it's wrong for me to answer a question not asked, I can only assume you'll chastise Bob for doing the same thing.

I specifically asked if it's "okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?"

But conveniently enough, that's been ignored despite being pointed out twice now.

 

[Barabbas]

I never claimed they made the WH reckless, so if it's wrong for me to answer a question not asked, I can only assume you'll chastise Bob for doing the same thing.

I specifically asked if it's "okay to criticize anyone in government for being fiscally reckless?"

But conveniently enough, that's been ignored despite being pointed out twice now.

So, you said "anyone in government." Since we can likely agree that the President is someone in government, is it not fair to qualify the statement and ask, as Bob did, how the president can be in that group of "anyone in government", since the House starts the process?

So, let me qualify - what Bob said was not asking a question. Bob made a statement, a request if you will, for you to qualify your "anyone in government" statement to the House alone. He said for you to explain how the House was reckless, "since budgets begin life there, not in the Oval Office." You took that and explained how deficits were bad/reckless.

Since the president does not, in political reality, have the authority to veto line items or negotiate such things and is therefore held hostage to whatever makes it out of the House and Senate, Bob made an excellent point. To which you responded with a sideline part of the topic.



Edit: If your point is, by this quote above, that the president is not one of the anyones in government, then we have a whole different discussion. But, it's pretty hard not to say you were being critical of the president, too, when you said, "anyone in government".