Thanks Obama! GDP data show 5.7 percent rate in Q4, a quicker pace than expected

Thanks Obama, I really appreciate all of your effort in helping to prevent another great depression.

So, let's hear it cons: I'll bet the downturn is all Obama's fault, and this surprising level of growth has nothing to do with his policies, right?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4e589c210b2.gif[/atsimg]

If only we has given Bush 4 more years, his tax cuts for the rich would have finally done their trick, and the economy would surely by humming along w/ 1% unemployment, right?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1bcfc9fb87f7.gif[/atsimg]

www.google.com...:.DJI

Remember how Fox was laying into Obama 24/7 about the stock market when he first came to office? Don't hear much about the DOW these days, huh? It's up over 50% in one year, which makes me a bit richer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11f6e7d84c2a.jpg[/atsimg]

Don't economists say that job creation is usually a lagging indicator? Hopefully so, as that portends strong job numbers as the Obama recovery takes hold. As we can see, the DATA support that it is around the corner, and that things have improved dramatically since Bush left office.

Best,
Skunknuts



[edit on 1/29/2010 by skunknuts]

Maybe you could post where you got these charts. Also, the stock market is not a real indicator of the economy. It is just a bigger version of Vegas, Baby! Just because companies have laid off 20% of their staff and forced the other 80% to carry the load so that they can still deliver by the end of a quarter, rain or shine, and pay dividends to their investors does not really say to me that we are doing better. This is exactly what is going on in my husband's aerospace company. Forget quality, it's about quantity...and we know where that ultimately leads.

We all know those #'s are false and will be "adjusted" later, just like the Nov. jobs #'s.But you know Transparent Barry will use them to lie to the people anyway. .
Just disgraceful!

reply to post by SunnyDee


Well yeah, we still operate in a corporatist model that values profit above all other measures. No argument from me there. But remember, Obama is supposed to be some sort of socialist

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by genius/idoit


Just like I thought, you have nothing of relevance to say. Please provide proof that the data has been tampered with. Not that you need to, as the GOP faithful only need their faith when 'forming' opinions and dogma.

1. the economy is still loosing jobs

2. no new jobs above those lost have been created

3. the higher GDP is a function of inflation.

The economy is stagnating, not improving.

You're looking at rates, which are entirely different from counts.


[edit on 29-1-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


People are going to have to get used to a new Gov keynote word.



Jobless Recovery

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

People are going to have to get used to a new Gov keynote word.



Jobless Recovery

That basically described 8 of the last 10 years, before the great recession. I am holding out hope that Obama's team has formulated a plan that will create jobs. It is too early to tell, but the gapgh looks like it is about to turn positive.

Best,
SN

reply to post by skunknuts


Personally I try my best( it can be hard) to ignore people who jump on the blame train. Obama inherited a mess, yes, and anyone who has half a brain knows it's gonna take time to straightien our economy out, years most likely, and I don't believe there is much ANY President could do to change this timeline. It takes time to ruin something and it takes time to fix it again.
BUT, there are things Obama is doing that are questionable. He ran his campaign on ending the wars for one thing, and we are nowhere near that anymore. He has kept Bernanke, he has signed into law some questionable documents, (I'll have to go look them up for you) and as so many past Presidents have done, he is being lead by others, at least it looks that way to me. Only time will tell, so I hold judgement a little bit longer than one year.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Thanks for saving me some typing.But don't forget about Christmas.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You're looking at rates, which are entirely different from counts.

In science, it's often stated that the rate is more important than the current value, because it's an argument in an exponential function.

I'm a bit curious about this graph. The vertical axis is labeled "jobs lost". As you can the number of "jobs lost" is most negative just before Bush left office. Negative jobs lost = jobs gained, right? So really, things were best in Jan '09.








[edit on 1/29/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by skunknuts


I like President Obama, and I voted for him.
However, this trumpeting by the MSM is way too soon.

The post by mnemeth1 is on the right track,
higher GDP is a function of inflation. (as a portion)

These numbers will be revised.

And most importantly please remember that
GDP includes portions of Government spending.

They so desperately need our confidence back to aid the recovery, and they are willing to spin this anyway they can to get there sooner. Even if it puts you at financial risk.

reply to post by skunknuts


Well, I can tell ya that things are not as bad now as they were when the financial crises hit, but its still early days. Those signs of an improving economic state may be conforting, but lets not forget its still only a year. For all we know that data may just be a sign of a small improvement before we drop again. I'd only really start to feel confident we are healing by the end of the year.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


That was December 2007, well before the major financial collapse that started in September of 2008. In addition to that job growth under Bush during his 8year administration was the worst since WW2:

jacksonville.bizjournals.com...

So jobs were decreasing and heading that way in any case.

Although I'd like to see the source of the data, where the OP got it from. I'll have a look.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Strict parsing of the language leads to it saying the opposite. I know what was intended.

In other words: how much more or less am I worth if I lose -100 dollars?

The chart says the souce of the data is The Bureau of Labor Statistics for 12/04/09.

Since it also says "OFFICE OF SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI", I'm guessing the original souce of the chart is The Gavel: Blog Archive: Here Are The Facts, Mr. Boehner.

[edit on 1/29/2010 by EnlightenUp]