"Recovery Summer"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

he clearly did... "and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation)"

Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
-spence

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

FLOTUS is spending our money like a queen

[scottw]

"Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. "



Economist: U.S. GDP growth ‘mediocre’

The U.S. GDP grew 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, down from the 3.1% during the fourth quarter of 2010 and considerably lower than the 3.7% growth in the first quarter of 2010.


“That’s pretty mediocre growth, especially coming out of a recession,” Collins said of the GDP number.

.......................................

IMF: US GDP Growth Below 3% For Six Years Posted: June 30, 2011 at 9:02 am

It would be hard for the news about the financial status of the US to be worse. The debt cap may not be increased by August 2. Rating agencies have warned of cuts in the grade of US paper. Jobless claims have not improved. Q2 GDP was no better than 2%

The IMF has decided to pile on. It has just released its “Concluding Statement of the 2011 Article IV Mission to The United States of America”, which was finished on June 20.

The agency predicts US GDP growth will be below 3% for six years, much worse than the long-term predictions of the Administration or the Congressional Budget Office.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

The data presented in the report does indicate positive and sustained growth in both GDP and employment they attribute to the Stimulus.

Anderson doesn't seem to challenge the numbers, he just distorts them to give you a little chub. I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...as is often the case with articles like this intended mostly for quick circulation with little nutrition.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I've actually tried to follow his logic and am at a loss for how he reaches the conclusions he does...-spence

this won't shock many here

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;869785]I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...
SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 1, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf


Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years.???? Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then???????, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010?????. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment(JUNE 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT DATA*
(U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 9.2% ??????????) by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

.................................................. ........................

let's compare the report...that ultimately was not worth reading... to reality

By Samuel R. Staley
The U.S. Department of Commerce released its economic growth estimates for the second quarter of 2011 and they are, well, dismal. And depressing. The economy grew just 1.3 percent from April to June of this year, well below the 2.5 percent necessary to chip away at unemployment. What’s worse, estimates of growth for the first quarter were revised downward to just 0.4 percent.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release:

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, an upturn in federal government spending, and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by a sharp deceleration in personal consumption expenditures.

The deceleration of personal consumer spending is particularly troubling for the Obama administration, since the entire stimulus package assumed that consumer spending was the key to reviving the economy. Goosing consumers would lead to long-term growth.

Moreover, a look at GDP growth since Obama took office surely has the president and his advisers worried:

2009 2nd Qtr: -0.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9%
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
first quarter 2011 were revised downward and if you follow along at all you know that the 2nd quarter will likely follow suit

Most of the growth in 2009 was independent of the government spending stimulus (and likely reflected the benefits of monetary policy and tax cuts). The economy began to sputter out around the time federal spending peaked. The emperor has no clothes.