Sagging economy: Q1 GDP revised downward to -0.7%

It’s Obama’s policies.
During this same quarter India’s economy grew 7.9%
That’s wonderful, for them.

What’s that sound? Could it be the sound of republicans in closed rooms applauding and cheering? Has Rush broken into his happy dance?

Obama’s economy had been buoyed by the oil industry but in case you hadn’t noticed OPEC tried to break the US fracking industry…..and failed.
So, OPEC producers will be limiting their exports and hoping prices for oil rise.
(Saudi Arabia is in the middle of a war so it needs the extra income.)
People were wise to not spend every ”extra” penny they seemed to have when gas prices were low. Gas prices will be rising again now that OPEC has conceded.

ObamaCare’s ”employer mandate” that Obama put off for as long as he could (because he knew it is an economic drag) will hit full force soon.

We have 98 million people out of work or have given up looking adding to the pressure of those few workers left to support 50% of the rest of Americans who are dependent on gov’t handouts to some extent.

Over $1 Trillion is sitting on the sidelines both in businesses and in families pockets, awaiting a time when we have more certainty about taxes, risks, penalties and so on.

All Obama’s jury-rigging the GDP numbers hasn’t helped him look good on paper lately. Maybe he’ll try messing with the calculations once again.

@Greg: You still don’t get it, do you, Greg?

Forget the cooked stats; how many people that NEED jobs are WORKING? Full time? RECORD HIGH NUMBERS.

Good Lord, how many times does it have to be made clear that not everyone is so stupid as to continue believing in this crap.

You might not have noticed, but we also have record high numbers of the elderly, of the disabled, and of people who are too young to be regularly attached to the work force. The nation has record high numbers of people.

The nation has also had an overall decline in public employees during the past few years, while the total number of private sector employees has reached record levels.

The problem is that the U.S. population has increased more rapidly than job growth.

Another problem—which has to do both with the decline of the middle class and with slowing consumption of goods and services—is that real wages have been stagnant for over a decade, if not actually declining.

Good Lord, how many times does it have to be made clear that not everyone is so stupid as to continue believing in this crap.

Crap like the points I just made? Those are demonstrably true aspects of what is commonly referred to as “reality.” I suppose they’re not particularly useful to mention when someone is trying to convince the rubes that the economy is about to fall over dead, and it’s all Obama’s fault.

With so many authoritative links to choose from…where to begin?

#1 The Obama administration tells us that 8.69 million Americans are �officially unemployed� and that 92.90 million Americans are considered to be �not in the labor force�. That means that more than 101 million U.S. adults do not have a job right now.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNEMPLOY
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS15000000

#2 One recent survey discovered that 55 percent of Americans believe that the American Dream either never existed or that it no longer exists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/24/the-american-dream-is-hurting/

#3 Considering the fact that Obama is in the White House, it is somewhat surprising that 55 percent of all Republicans still believe in the American Dream, but only 33 percent of all Democrats do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/24/the-american-dream-is-hurting/

#4 After adjusting for inflation, median household income has fallen by nearly $5,000 since 2007.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

#5 After adjusting for inflation, �the median wealth figure for middle-income families� fell from $78,000 in 1983 to $63,800 in 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931509/Average-American-household-WORSE-1983-study-claims-bottom-60-population-suffering-super-rich-82-CENT-better-off.html

#6 At this point, 59 percent of Americans believe that �the American dream has become impossible for most people to achieve�.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/story-supplement/cnn-orc-poll.pdf?iid=EL

#7 In 1967, 53 percent of Americans were considered to be �middle income�. But today, only 43 percent of Americans are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

#8 For each of the past six years, more businesses have closed in the United States than have opened. Prior to 2008, this had never happened before in all of U.S. history.

#9 According to the New York Times, the �typical American household� is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

#10 According to one recent report, 43 million Americans currently have unpaid medical debt on their credit reports.

http://theconversation.com/why-medical-debt-and-bankruptcy-are-growing-problems-35532

#11 Traditionally, owning a home has been one of the key indicators that you belong to the middle class. Unfortunately, the rate of homeownership in the U.S. has now been falling for seven years in a row.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Homeownership-Rate-2014.png

#12 According to a survey that was conducted last year, 52 percent of all Americans cannot even afford the house that they are living in right now.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/over-50-of-americans-struggle-with-home-affordability-2014-06-03

#13 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 46 million.

#14 The number of Americans on food stamps has now exceeded the 46 million mark for 38 months in a row.

#15 Right now, more than one out of every five children in the United States is on food stamps.

http://rt.com/usa/227231-children-food-stamps-poverty-rate/

#16 According to a Washington Post article published just recently, more than 50 percent of the children in U.S. public schools now come from low income homes. This is the first time that this has happened in at least 50 years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/2015/01/15/df7171d0-9ce9-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?hpid=z1

#17 According to the Census Bureau, 65 percent of all children in the United States are living in a home that receives some form of aid from the federal government.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/65-percent-children-live-households-federal-aid-programs

#18 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be �middle class�. But by 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans still considered themselves to be �middle class�.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2014/01/28/middle-class/?iid=HP_LN

#19 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be �lower class�. But in 2014, an astounding 49 percent of all Americans in that age range considered themselves to be �lower class�.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2014/01/28/middle-class/?iid=HP_LN

#20 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2012

#21 According to one recent survey, 62 percent of all Americans are currently living paycheck to paycheck.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/verge-next-economic-crisis-62-percent-americans-living-paycheck-paycheck

#22 According to CNN, the typical American family can only �replace 21 days of income with readily accessible funds�.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/29/news/economy/middle-class-financial-families/index.html?iid=HP_LN

@Mully, #12:

The economic policies the previous administration advocated didn’t work so well either. Consumers were encouraged to go on a credit binge; we funded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes when there was already a deficit problem by borrowing billions from China; and then the whole thing predictably came crashing down, because none of it was sustainable. We also saw a huge increase in Real Per Capita Government Spending during the Bush years. One thing the Bush administration really did grow was government.

So, exactly how were republican economic policies better, if you measure them by actual results rather than by empty rhetoric?

Somebody got a lot richer during those years because of republican economic policies, but it wasn’t the middle or working classes.

@Greg:

The economic policies the previous administration advocated didn’t work so well either.

Oh? What were those policies, Greg? Name them.

Who encouraged anyone to go on a credit binge, besides the liberal-conceived Community Reinvestment Act?

we funded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes when there was already a deficit problem by borrowing billions from China;

During Bush’s economy, despite war spending and BECAUSE of tax cuts, deficits decreased from 2004 to 2008. Obama has to drive deficits up to $1.4 trillion a year and have the Republicans force spending cuts to decrease deficits… and they are still more than Bush’s greatest deficit.

While spending was still out of control under the Republicans, wise economic policies which encouraged growth (as opposed to socialistic programs and economy-killing regulations) reduced deficits. All Obama can do is claim success even as every indicators prove failure.

Somebody got a lot richer during those years because of republican economic policies, but it wasn’t the middle or working classes.

Again, cite the policies. Now, under Obama’s quantitative easing/money printing/0% interest rates, the vile “income gap” has grown even larger. You like that?

@Greg:

Honest to God, I cannot but begin to wonder if you aren’t here pretending to be a leftist just to get people to debate, because I find it hard to believe anyone can really be as blind as your posts would indicate.

Notwithstanding your completely inept attempt to refute the numerous cited points Thirteen posted showing the dreadful state of the US economy under Obama, you idiotically blame Bush for increased government spending knowing full well the in spite of being at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, the federal deficit was DECREASING every year under Bush, until the democrats took over Congress and tripled the federal budget deficit the first year Pelosi and Reid were in charge. You also forget the fact that Obama’s first budget tripled the federal deficit again, and we have had over a trillion dollars in annual deficits every year until the sequester was in effect. You keep making the dubious claim that Bush spent more per capita, yet under Obama we have 15 million more on food stamps, and the national debt at the end of Bush’s second term was 10.8 trillion, while it is currently over 18 trillion since Obama took office. There is no possible way Bush spent more per capita in his 8 years than Obama has spent in his 6 years.

No one with an ounce of intelligence believes that our foreign policies under Obama are more successful than when Bush was in office. The incredibly stupid leftist position that ISIS is Bush’s fault rather than because Obama wanted the political feather in his cap of pulling out all our troops from Iraq is as moronic as blaming a gun manufacterer for the misuse of a firearm in the commission of a crime by some thug. Obama could have easily renegotiated the SOFA, but he wanted out of Iraq, consequences be damned.

Obama’s economic policies stink to high Heaven, and when the employer mandate kicks in…conveniently after the scumbag is out of office…it will be even worse.

The economic hypocrisy of the left is in plain view, as seen by the effort by unions in LA lobbying to be exempted from the $15/hr minimum wage just voted in by the dems who control that city. It is stupifying beyond belief that Obama propagandized on the alleged positive economic effects of the Obamacare employer mandate, yet rather than let this monster come forth, he repeatedly delayed the date for it to take effect. As I have asked many times, why delay something that one believes will have positive economic effect, unless it is known the policy will have detrimental effects? Every policy from the left is as ridiculous as the fictitious “Dog eat dog” legislation in “Atlas Shrugged”.

Obama uses the EPA to prohibit drilling for oil on public lands, then wants credit for the fracking and shale oil booms that have occured from use of PRIVATE lands.

His weakening of the US military and bizarre foreign policy has led to a horrendous situation in the middle east, with even the French saying he is caving to the Iranian goal of obtaining nukes.

The contraction by 0.7% of the US economy cannot be defined as a positive thing, especially when one realizes that if the second quarter also contracts, we will officially be in a recession.

One cannot spend oneself out of debt in household finances, and the nation cannot magically do so either.

@Greg: The policies? How about the Bush tax cuts, which were very heavily weighted in favor of those having the highest income? The richest benefited to a far greater degree than working families.

Here’s a little help to understand why ”the rich” benefited to a greater degree than ”working families.”
Pay special attention to how your point is made. I bolded it for your ease in finding it.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

@Greg:
We’ve got a person running for president you can get behind. Bernie Sanders. He’s for the 90 per cent tax rate on wealthy individuals. Those like the Clinton’s would be under Bernie’s new tax rate. I’m sure you’d be all in for that because it wouldn’t hit your wallet directly. That’s the answer sending more money to corrupt politicians in Washington.

@Greg:

Everybody condemns Obama’s socialist auto industry bail-out. Nobody seems to remember where it actually began

Yeah… it began with the UAW. Tell us, why did Ford require no bail-out? Oh, and how will we recover the $10 billion we lost when GM stock never rose to the level to fully compensate for the bail out, as PROMISED?

just as they don’t remember who was actually responsible for the timetable for withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq

Obama. Pure, simple and verified. Etched in stone, settled science, end of debate…. Obama, 100%. Obama’s decision, Obama’s failure.

How about the Bush tax cuts, which were very heavily weighted in favor of those having the highest income? The richest benefited to a far greater degree than working families.

I have to wonder, Greg, are you stupid or just a liar? First, the tax cuts, by boosting the economy, added $780 billion in tax revenues. Second, the tax cuts were across the board and weighted heavily in favor of those in lower income brackets. Though it is a mathmatical fact that 1% of a million is more than 15% of 50,000, the tax cuts benefited everyone with an income and many without.

Bush tax cuts create 44% increase in tax revenues; $786 billion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/

Benefits of cutting taxes
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/bush-tax-cuts-explained-facts-costs-tax-rates-charts

Maher admits Republicans right about taxes

Bill Maher Upset Over The Amount Of Taxes He Pays

Obama has to bear responsibility for the dismal condition of the economy (what happened to your claims the economy was wonderful, Greg? Reality overload?) because he has taken every effort to make sure it never grows. Raising taxes, multiplying regulations, violating laws, unpredictable agenda all keeps profits in savings rather than deployed to grow businesses and, thus, create jobs.

Obama said HIS programs would turn the economy around in 3 years. After over 6, .7% economic shrinkage is the result, along with still unacceptably high levels of those without jobs.

@Pete:

There is no possible way Bush spent more per capita in his 8 years than Obama has spent in his 6 years.

There is one explanation… corruption and waste under Obama has reached such levels that billions just go away; either wasted and lost or into cronies pockets.

@retire05:

That is because leftists define “fair” in the same manner that a self-centered 3 year old does, by whatever whim they want satisfied at a particular moment with no regard to consequences, short or long term. That is why leftists insist on re-writing (meaning “falsify”) history, always in a manner that is designed to erase the vulgar, lazy, selfish failure of the vain leftist. Look at the disgusting behavior of Marx. Leftists are so amoral, they revel in the vile nature of people like Bill Clinton. Remember the idiot writer for whatever “womens” magazine who wrote she would fellate Clinton for keeping abortion legal? That is the definition of what passes for reasoning on the left.

Wealth redistributionists are nothing but craven, jealous, political opportunists spewing their koran of wealth envy, awaiting any chance to whip up the economically illiterate to vote in yet another method of stealing from producers to get more addicted to government handouts.

@retire05, #25:

Even Gullible Greggie’s percentages are bogus.

In 2002, the first year of the “Bush” tax cuts, higher income brackets saw a reduction in the tax percentage from 39.1% to 38.6%, a reduction of 1/2 a percentage point. For lower income brackets, the tax percentage went from 15% to 10%, a full 5 percentage points.

What is bogus is an assertion that the advertised percentages of statutory rate reductions were the same thing as the real world effective rate reductions. The figures in the chart reflect those real world distributional results, not the statutory rate cover story.

A deception was perpetrated. A redistribution of wealth took place. It was not from the top to the bottom. That’s why the wealthy ultimately became a more so, while the working and middle classes ultimately lost a lot of ground, and are looking at increasingly insecure futures. Your alternate explanation, of course, is that poor people made out like bandits.

So what about those May auto sales figures? Do they indicate a sinking economy and plummeting consumer confidence, or what?

I’m so pessimistic about the economy that I bought a new smallish SUV myself this past weekend. The EPA estimate is 6 mpg better than my old vehicle, which was solid but 15 years old. I’m foolishly preparing for $5/gal gasoline in a year or two.