Obama Says Jump in GDP Growth “Affirms Our Progress”

As George Costanza would say:
“I’m back baby!”

CNBC points out that actual growth is still muted:
“Growth was boosted a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation, a factor that could mask the strength of the economic recovery from the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.
“But even stripping out inventories, the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent, accelerating from the 1.5 percent increase in the third quarter, reflecting relatively strong performance from other segments of the economy.”
And let’s not forget Q3 ’09 was revised down twice. Just being realistic about preliminary numbers, is all.

“While noting that numbers like these don’t mean much to those that are still out of work, the president said that the “good news” is that the numbers equal economic growth – and businesses will soon start hiring again.”
Copy this into your file of Obama quotes that he (and his followers) will nuance later. I’m sure they will focus on what the meaning of “soon” is.

When will Obama’s trickle up economic theory start to kick in? You know – the one where you get a job from a poor person. I believe he “touted” THAT gem during the campaign saying the trickle down theory wasn’t working.
Posted by: For The Record | Jan 29, 2010 12:52:53 PM
What a silly characterization of the notion that you expand the middle class and support small and mid-sized business to create jobs– and you take care of the poor and downtrodden out of compassion and because its the right thing to do. I love the notion of tax credits for hiring and hope to add a couple trainers to the payroll when it kicks in!

It already has…best economic growth in 5 years says CNN. Let’s see how little credit he gets for this.

expand the middle class and support small and mid-sized business to create jobs–
Posted by: progressive mama | Jan 29, 2010 12:56:41 PM
Next you’re going to tell me this is a “revolutionary new idea” from Obama.

You do realize that Obama wants to eliminate the middle class, right?

“Today, we’ve stopped the flood of job losses. We’ve stabilized the financial system. And we can safely say that we’ve avoided that looming depression,” the president said of the GDP numbers, “we received a report that affirms our progress and the swift and aggressive actions that made it possible.”
Wow. An older president would pull muscles overreaching like that. Should have thrown in the one about the rising seas, too. I like that one.

progressive mama-You might want to mention that trickle down doesn’t work because of inflation. The newly created money goes to the banks and well-connected at the Fed funds rate. As the money enters the system and trickles down to the lowest common denominator, the inflationary effects have kicked in so that now the money’s purchasing power is worth considerably less. This is essentially a tax on the poor and middle class that transfers wealth to the rich. The true defender of the poor Ron Paul explained this during the republican debates quite well during the few times he was allowed to speak.

The true defender of the poor Ron Paul explained this during the republican debates quite well during the few times he was allowed to speak.
Posted by: Huh | Jan 29, 2010 1:19:06 PM
Yes he did. My husband supported him, as did one of my good friends, a military wife.

Does it only make sense to hire them if you are getting a tax credit to do it OR are you waiting to hire until you can gain the tax credit?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Jan 29, 2010 1:09:39 PM
Good question. I anticipated hiring one in spring (when people around here get way more worried about looking and being fit), and wasn’t going to take off as much time in the summer as I usually do, but the tax credit incents me to think about that– and take advantage of it. I like tax credits and breaks– I’m not big on taxes, but I do like things like universal health care, high speed rail, good neighborhood schools and a strong military as well as qualified first responders so at all levels of government taxes are a tradeoff for taking care of the common good.

I’m not big on taxes, but I do like things like universal health care, high speed rail, good neighborhood schools and a strong military as well as qualified first responders so at all levels of government taxes are a tradeoff for taking care of the common good.
—-
Better start to like them.

“Great ’cause I’m unemployed. Will you take care of me now that I’m poor and downtrodden? Somehow I think not – you’ll probably make a value judgment because of my “silly notions.”"
Who would hire a right wingers that has proven themselves thoroughly dishonest?

Who would hire a right wingers that has proven themselves thoroughly dishonest?
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 1:36:14 PM
Ha ha! (Whatever)
“hire a right wingers who has proven themselves”? Nice sentence structure. I don’t think progressive mama will be hiring you any time soon. But then you already have a job, don’t you, Ellie.

“IOW our economy is recovering which pretty much torpedoes the GOP election strategy which can be summed up as obstruction, no new ideas and the economy remaining in the toilet.”
Tell the (by some estimates) 17%+ of Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed that the economy is “recovering”.
Tell us, Ryan, how are Republicans responsible for “obstruction”?
No “new ideas”? How would we know? Reid and Pelosi have used “closed-door strategy” to thwart Republican proposals and Obama has proclaimed “I won”.
The Republicans at this point do not need much of an election strategy – The Democrats are writing the strategy for them!

“The quote is very high rhetoric and demonstrates the philosophy to get rid of the middle class. The middle class is the bridge between the poor and the rich”
The middle class was BUILT by unions.

The middle class was BUILT by unions.
Posted by: Ryan C |
Who built 2010 Detroit?

Tell the (by some estimates) 17%+ of Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed that the economy is “recovering”.
I read a good article about the difference between the way economists use the term “recovery” — the actual definition of it in those terms– and the public perception of “recovery.” They’re different. Its a good point but when people talk about unemployment, jobless recoveries, and the job lag, they’re addressing this. It doesn’t change the fact that the economy is recovering, or further the debate.

The middle class was BUILT by unions.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 1:59:07 PM
Exactly. And then thanks to freedom and free enterprise, it grew into something else while unions grew corrupt and priced themselves out of being competitive.
Obama wants to ruin it again because it represents all that is free and good about this country. There’s a reason the middle class and small businesses drive the economy, Ellie.

The middle class was BUILT by unions.
Like people who owned and operated their own business! That union…

There’s a reason the middle class and small businesses drive the economy, Ellie.
Posted by: For The Record | Jan 29, 2010 2:09:45 PM
The Ellie thing is obnoxious, and now is being way overdone. To me Ryan C sounds nothing like the Ellie Light example I saw. And he sounds much, much less memorized- talking-point-astroturf than many of the folks on the right that post here. (example, I loved the thing about being screwed without lubricant yesterday– funny line.)

To me Ryan C sounds nothing like the Ellie Light example I saw.
Posted by: progressive mama | Jan 29, 2010 2:15:45 PM
If you recall, the original statement was about Ryan already having a “job” – as in paid liberal propagandist… that’s all. I’ll go back to calling him “comrade ROFLMAO!”
(Isn’t it all about “isolate and demonize”?)

“I had a contract with a state govt for a year a few years back. It was an eye opener to say the least…”
I had similar with federal govt. entity a few years back: Little accountability, no sense of urgency, limited capability/imagination among employees, very unproductive environment. Lots of internet surfing, “flexible work hours” (which meant every other Friday off), lots of long lunches, and unproductive meetings in which absolutely nothing accomplished.

The Ellie thing is obnoxious, and now is being way overdone. To me Ryan C sounds nothing like the Ellie Light example I saw. And he sounds much, much less memorized- talking-point-astroturf than many of the folks on the right that post here.”
Its quite hilarious.
A couple of years ago, the RNC’s official website had sample letters written with GOP talking points to send to editors of newspapers.
Then there is the article of the dutch journalist who signed on to be a letter writer for the McCain.
See
“I ghost wrote letters for the mccain campaign”
Sample
“”You can be whoever you want to be,” says an inviting Phil Tuchman. “You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!”
All I am going to say its amazing how many hillary supporting african american independent women that hate Obama post on this website.

“Most of the day was spent sitting at each others’ desk chit chatting – or smoking out in the back.”
Never worked in a large corporation, I guess.

Tell the (by some estimates) 17%+ of Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed that the economy is “recovering”.”
Its not some estimates.
Its the U6 figure published along with the more familiar U3.
The U6 figure includes people who ran out of benefits yet remain unemployed (iow lost their jobs on your heroes watch), the under employed (people who would want and are capable of full time employment but cannot get it) and those applying for unemployment.
Its a better picture of our unemployment.
Of course the right wing never mentioned it during the Bush years but I am glad to see it used more nonetheless.
“Tell us, Ryan, how are Republicans responsible for “obstruction”?”
The GOP just broke their own record for filibusters from last Congressional session….in less than a year
“The Republicans at this point do not need much of an election strateg”
Exactly.
They hope the country remains mired in a bad economy and that voters blame the Democrats forgetting that it was the GOP that has brought about this mess.
That may be good election strategy but it sure is lousy for the country.

Isn’t it all about “isolate and demonize”?)
Posted by: For The Record | Jan 29, 2010 2:28:14 PM”
Odd thing to complain about as you attempt to call me out and demonize me.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 2:56:05 PM
Who’s complaining, comrade ROFLMAO!? I’m trying it on for size.

Let’ see…3rd quarter GDP is becuse of Obama, December unemployment is because of Bush. Got it.
No wonder he’s under 50%. Minus 17 at Rasmussen, with two thirds of the respondents being polled after the SOTU. And Dem pollsters
Caddell and Schoen reported this month that Ras has an “unchallenged reputation for accuracy and integrity.”
The time when this incompetent simpleton could sway the public by giving a speech has come and gone. This is a mediocre one-termer.

Posted by: tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 3:19:54 PM
Speaking reason to those without any. But I applaud your efforts.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, Republicans have utilized the filibuster due to the unreasonableness of Obama/Reid legislation? Maybe?
_________________________________
Apparently not . ..
“Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama’s stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
“When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today,” said Specter, “one of my colleagues said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ My Republican colleague said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ I said, ‘Are you going to vote with me?’ And he said, ‘No, I might have a primary.’ And I said, ‘Well, you know very well I’m going to have a primary.’”
Also consider the reaction these Senators received for their vote from Republicans.
Same thing with the bank bailout last year.
Almost all of the GOP under threat from leadership refused to vote for it because they thought that was a winning electoral strategy if it failed.
IOW they preferred they own seats to rescuing the economy.
__________________________________
posted by Ryan C.

“The strategy is not about hoping for continued economic pain (many conservatives have lost jobs and have seen value of 401k accounts plummet) rather it is more about opposing bad policies and expansion of government.”
Sure it is.
If economic conditions improve, the GOP has nothing to run on.

“The strategy is not about hoping for continued economic pain (many conservatives have lost jobs and have seen value of 401k accounts plummet) rather it is more about opposing bad policies and expansion of government.”
I agree with Ryan, though I know for many its simply about not caring about it at all as long as a certain handful of billionaires prosper– and somebody’s at the helm that doesn’t give a care either.

GOP doing far betteron the generic ballot now than in January of 1994. oh, it’s gonna be fun!
And can’t you just feel the excitement on the Dem side?
Woot! Woot! Woot!

“More specifically, 61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.”
Um, Ryan, corporations and unions ARE limited in the amount they can contribribute to candidates. The SC ruling did not change this.

So far the only thing Obama has done is spend a lot of money and bail out what are now his new best friends.
Posted by: For The Record | Jan 29, 2010 3:58:36 PM
______________________________________
Hogwash.

Posted by: tierra | Jan 29, 2010 3:57:29 PM
So we have now resorted to copy-and-paste of others? Pretty lazy, isn’t it?

“Yeah free enterprise which came hat in hand to the government after they nearly blew up the economy with unjustified risks because regulations and oversight were not there.”
Like the oversight opposed by Democrats for Fannie and Freddie?

“Um, Ryan, corporations and unions ARE limited in the amount they can contribribute to candidates. The SC ruling did not change this.”
Reading comprehension time.
The poll was not directly on the Supreme Court ruling but on the subject matter of campaign donations.
Ya know as opposed to what the right winger who originally posted some figures of it claimed it was.
The lesson as always?

Like Fannie and Freddie.
Posted by: Bonus 6 | Jan 29, 2010 4:09:28 PM
And auto companies decimated by unions.

ROFLMAO!
Yeah free enterprise which came hat in hand
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 4:06:31 PM
You mean Obama’s newest best friends?
Meanwhile small business free enterprise that drives the economy continue working hard to overcome Obama’s destructive tactics.

“Meanwhile small business free enterprise that drives the economy continue working hard to overcome Obama’s destructive tactics.”
Could you tell me what destructive tactics Obama has put upon small business?

Meanwhile small business free enterprise that drives the economy continue working hard to overcome Obama’s destructive tactics.
__________________________________
Do you mean like the additional tax breaks the President has put forward to help small business?

The person charged with the responsibility to oversee and regulate Fannie and Freddie was a Bush appointee James Lockhart – an old school chum of Bush’s. He assured Bush all was well.
And Obama believed him too. That’s change!

And wasn’t it Dems that did finally sponsor and pass a bill providing oversight– oh gosh, it was.
Posted by: progressive mama | Jan 29, 2010 4:24:45 PM
Yes, they were dragged to the table kicking and screaming, as I recall.

Do you mean like the additional tax breaks the President has put forward to help small business?”
A list of those tax breaks from the Journal of Accountancy
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 contains numerous tax provisions aimed at small businesses.
_______________
Nice specifics. A lot of Republican partisans falsely believe that the Republican party has the small business owners back. Not true.

The person charged with the responsibility to oversee and regulate Fannie and Freddie was a Bush appointee James Lockhart – an old school chum of Bush’s. He assured Bush all was well.
And Obama believed him too. That’s change!
Posted by: Bonus 6 | Jan 29, 2010 4:32:21 PM
_____________________________________
Not really. Obama was warning of an impeding housing crash months before it happened. Research it.

“Could you tell me what destructive tactics Obama has put upon small business?”
How about his frequent rants against banks and business? How about “it’s good to spread the wealth around”? How about his refusal to extend Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $250,000 per year (many of whom are small business owners)? How about his insistence that small business employees have mandated healthcare?
If you had a fundamental understanding of how small businesses operate, you wouldn’t have needed to ask the question…or you were simply being disingenuous…

“Posted by: For The Record | Jan 29, 2010 4:42:32 PM”
Still nothing examples of how Obama hurt small business?
Shall we throw that lie on the pile then?
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 4:52:33 PM
Oh, were you talking to me? Cause I was talking about “Obama’s destructive tactics” such as oh, I don’t know: unions, card check, healthcare, cap & trade, demonizing free enterprise, pursuing an agenda to eliminate the middle class, giving sweetheart deals to his constituents, bringing lobbyists and socialists into his administration. You know TACTICS…

“If economic conditions improve, the GOP has nothing to run on.”
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 3:36:48 PM
____________
IF the Democrats go back to the drawing board for healthcare reform and actually come up with a healthcare reform bill that is supported by at least half of the Republicans (at least 20 votes FOR the bill) AND the economy improves, the Democrats will lose some seats in November but retain control of the House.
IF, on the other hand, the Democrats ram through their healthcare reform bill by reconciliation, the Republicans will win back the House EVEN if the economy improves.
Actually, if no federal income tax hikes are passed before the end of the year, I expect the economic conditions to improve significantly by year’s end: GDP up 2.5% for the all of 2010; and the unemployment rate at about 8.5% for December 2010. AND THEN when the Bush tax cuts expire on Jan 1, 2011 (even if only for those making at least $250,000) and additional surtaxes are raised on the wealthy, watch for the next recession to hit by the middle of 2011 with unemployment hitting 10% again.

“Small business thinks of themselves as fat cat corporations, brokerage firms and large banks? That’s odd.”
Ryan – Since you do not understand capitalism, let me explain: (1.) Banks are the lifeblood of small business, (2.) small businesses cannot feel comfort that Obama attacks business (including banks, Wall Street, etc.) to the degree he does. Some of them have dreams that one day they will be able to take their companies public via a Wall Street brokered IPO.
BTW – Bloomberg poll finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business
“The vast majority of small businesses make less than $100K”
Really? Perhaps you are confusing “gross” income vs. “net” income (let me know if you need me to explain)
“The Sam the Plumber lie? ROFLMAO!”
I guess you missed the video the rest of us saw. It’s probably still available on online if you want to catch up. Search “Joe the Plumber, Obama”.
“Of course since NO ONE’s taxes have gone up, I am not sure what you are complaining about.”
Again, since you seem to be unfamiliar with how businesses work, businesses make strategic decisions (including hiring) based on projections. If they sense costs will rise (e.g., rising taxes), they may choose to hold costs constant or cut back spending (including termination of workers).
Small business owners do not trust Obama. Thus, they are not hiring.

Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 29, 2010 5:35:10 PM
Confirmed: RC has a limited (at best) understanding of how businesses operate.
Posted by: tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 5:39:37 PM
And apparently a limited ability or courage to offer any solutions. Just troll along, day after day, looking for gotcha moments.

“And apparently neither does Wall Street since we are just about ready to go back under 10,000 in the Dow.”
I had a feeling…sold shares earlier in the week, but in retrospect not as much as I would have liked…
But Obama doesn’t watch the stock market, so all is well (unless the market is up).

But Obama doesn’t watch the stock market, so all is well (unless the market is up).
Posted by: tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 6:03:00 PM
He also said he doesn’t respond to the 24-hour news cycle. Riiiiiight.

“Confirmed: RC has a limited (at best) understanding of how businesses operate:”
Right-wingers are always claiming they know so much more about how business operates. Yet two terms of George Bush proved beyond all doubt that they clearly do not.

Guess I’m just not feel’in the love, in reference to “Obama says junp in GDP growth….”

Guess I’m just not feel’in the love, in reference to “Obama says junp in GDP growth….”
Posted by: Parallax View | Jan 29, 2010 6:36:31 PM
Yeah! Parallax is here! Woo Hoo! Haven’t seen you post in a while.

Posted by: tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 5:42:22 PM posted: “You seem to be unfamiliar with how businesses work, businesses make strategic decisions (including hiring) based on projections. If they sense costs will rise (e.g., rising taxes), they may choose to hold costs constant or cut back spending (including termination of workers).”
Tjp612, I am presuming you are a business owner? The Small Business Association defines “small” as under 500 employees. According the SBA, there were 29 Million of us; we represent 99.7% of the companies employing in the US.
The US Census shows most small businesses operate with fewer than 500 employees. PayScale.com reports that those owners of businesses with 50 employees earn ~$100,000. (I am presuming these numbers are gross income, not take home pay.)
Now, I’m not sure about your business, but “trust for Obama” has nothing to do with our hiring decisions. However, I agree increased spending is based on “projections” – for example, a forecast for increased orders.
But your premise that small businesses are “afraid of taxes” does not make sense to me. All my company’s costs of doing business, including employee wages and benefits, come out of pre-tax income. We can reduce business taxes to almost zero by simply increasing our expenses, such as R&D or hiring more people.

“Good for you. But you still advocate his failed policies.”
Wrong. I don’t support Obama’s failed policies. There is a difference.
I’ve already stated that I didn’t support Bush’s spending, but Obama makes GWB look like a tightwad.

“If taxes were not a consideration for business owners, why are so many businesses leaving high tax states such as CA and NY and moving to lower tax states such as NV, TX, FL?”
ROFLMAO!
The goal post moving continues.
No answer for the RISE in small business hiring huh?

“But as a business owner, does increasing of business expenses mean there are less earnings for you to take home in your pocket?”
You weren’t pay attention.
If you are a smart small business owner, you have a set amount of compensation included as your business expense.
That way you know what your baseline is and any profit is gravy.

“But I do have a great appreciation for the impact (existing / proposed / implied) of government policies and taxation regimes on corporate investment outlook and psyche given that it is in part what I do for a living…”
So in that capacity you think potential taxation changes outweigh production needs when it comes to hiring considerations?

“If doing so is advantageous from a tax POV and your company is structured accordingly. Cases vary.”
And what company structures would support such an arrangement?

“So in that capacity you think potential taxation changes outweigh production needs when it comes to hiring considerations?”
Taxes impact where you choose to execute production activities. Thus the flight of manufacturing from high tax states such as CA and NY.

SORRY, I misunderstood the quote. I took it to mean the business earned $100,000. I now realize it is the owner that earned the $100,000. So yes, I agree that it is probably his net income!

tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 7:28:53 PM posted: “But as a business owner, does increasing of business expenses mean there are less earnings for you to take home in your pocket?”
It’s a balancing act. If we spend more on R&D one year, then hopefully next year we’ll have more products to sell for more income.
And, business owners do not always suffer by taking home less pay. For example, over the years I’ve been able to claim international travel as a business expense. IRS rules allow for a personal weekend as long as 50% of the remaining travel days were for business. I may take home less personal income, but neither my company nor I are taxed for the cost of travel. (This does require detailed expense reporting, however.)
“If taxes were not a consideration for business owners, why are so many businesses leaving high tax states such as CA and NY and moving to lower tax states such as NV, TX, FL?”
We moved our business from California a few years ago. I’m not sure about NY, but California needs a Constitutional Convention to untangle its seriously lopsided tax situation. Because of Prop 13 (the 1978 limit on real estate taxes) 2 exact houses on the same street can be taxed thousands of dollars apart. During the Dot-Com boom, businesses were making so much money that no one really cared if they were forced to compensate for real estate taxes. In down times, California home owners still expect businesses to pay more taxes for schools and community services.
We moved our business to Oregon where we are assessed NO sales taxes and pay lower than average property taxes. The overall tax burden remains one of the lowest in the nation. But, I had no problem voting for an increase in business taxes to help with our state’s deficit this week. The state had a flat $10.00 tax for all businesses since the 1930s – The propositions passed – now that tax will be tiered based on the business revenues.

Posted by: CenterOne | Jan 29, 2010 8:51:11 PM
Thanks for insight. My concern is that this administration uses CA as its economic model.

Obama Says Jump in GDP Growth “Affirms Our Progress”
_________
More phony data from the Obama Administration.
The 3rd quarter figures were much trumpeted by the Obama Administration before being downgraded from 3.5 to 2.2, much of it due to the “Cash for Clunkers” program.
These figures involve complicated inventory calculations. Wait for the subsequent recalculations.
There is nothing issued from the current administration that is to believed. Why is the stock market down today on such good data?

Posted by: tjp612 | Jan 29, 2010 10:14:08 PM posted: “My concern is that this administration uses CA as its economic model.”
There are some similarities, but also distinct differences between California’s economy and the nation as a whole. I am not worried that the Obama administration wants to emulate California’s mess – in fact, I think both CA and the federal government will be forced to make major changes.
California is almost its own country within the US – the state has the most people in the US and is responsible for 13% of our nation’s GDP. Unlike most other states, California has multiple economic hot spots – Hollywood, high- tech, aerospace, and vast agricultural lands. It’s the world’s 10th largest economy.
But there is systemic long term rot in California – taxes have become a horrific rats nest. Back in 1978 California home owners passed Prop 13, a cap on property taxes that cut taxes by an average of 57%. Today, property taxes are still based on fair market value at the time of purchase, so they don’t rise with property values. Two identical houses on the same block can be taxed thousands of dollars apart, depending upon when each house was purchased.
During the Dot-com boom, the wealthiest 3% of CA taxpayers became 60% of California’s state income, replacing unequal property taxes. When wealth declined during this recession, state revenues evaporated – in 2010, California has a $20 Million deficit.
Since wide tax cuts passed in 1978, California cooked up all sorts of taxes to compensate for the loss of real estate income – police, fire, schools, and state services like a world class University system. And, for decades, Californians did not want to cut services OR elimiate Prop 13.
So here’s where I think there is a parallel with our Federal deficit: both need a combination of spending cut backs, an equitable tax solution, and job creation in a friendly business environment.
And, as painful as it may be, both California + the US must CONFRONT the cost of undocumented workers. For example, low wage workers in the Agricultural production and processing industry help generate ~ $10 Billion of the State’s sales output. Forcing Agriculture to pay higher wages for legal workers could potentially increase food costs all over the United States. Today, everyone may benefit from Agriculture, but we also pay the burden of undocumented worker education, incarceration, and services.