B-Large Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) U.S. economic growth pulled back further during the second quarter of the year as consumer spending slowed--a reading that suggests domestic fiscal worries may becoming a more significant drag. The nation's gross domestic product--the value of all goods and services produced--grew at an annual rate of 1.5% between April and June, the Commerce Department said Friday. The reading is down from the upwardly revised 2.0% growth rate during the prior three months and a 4.1% rate in the fourth quarter of 2011. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected 1.3% annualized growth during the second quarter. sigh... stagnant wages for 30 years, cc debt boom, school loan debt boom, illiquid leverage traps for many homeowners..... it seriously may take another decade to get back to where we were. I have to ask, what possible reason do aggregate spenders have to go out and repeat the past? I am beginning to think more and more we, the US and its government need to go through a massive, long-term belt tightening... all non-essential program, done. Feel the pain for our years of decadence, and come out stronger in the end. We may be facing that Piper we have been talking about for 20 years, and there may be no more road in which to kick the can.... Edited July 27, 2012 by B-Large
B-Man Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 I am beginning to think more and more we, the US and its government need to go through a massive, long-term belt tightening... all non-essential program, done. Feel the pain for our years of decadence, and come out stronger in the end. You are correct, but since we cannot even trim back the annual growth of spending on programs, without being accused of "slashing" and "cutting to the bone", I am discouraged that we have (even now) reached the point where common sense will prevail. If only there was a vocal group pf Americans warning us about the over-reaching growth of government......(cough, cough T.E.A. Party, cough)
KD in CA Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 We may be facing that Piper we have been talking about for 20 years, and there may be no more road in which to kick the can.... Don't worry, Obama is building the new dirt road to America's future. We just need 2% of the population to pay "a little bit more" and everything will be fine.
WorldTraveller Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 sigh... stagnant wages for 30 years, cc debt boom, school loan debt boom, illiquid leverage traps for many homeowners..... it seriously may take another decade to get back to where we were. I have to ask, what possible reason do aggregate spenders have to go out and repeat the past? I am beginning to think more and more we, the US and its government need to go through a massive, long-term belt tightening... all non-essential program, done. Feel the pain for our years of decadence, and come out stronger in the end. We may be facing that Piper we have been talking about for 20 years, and there may be no more road in which to kick the can.... Unfortunately, the "greatest" economic minds believe that we should pump the primer and continue to spend to add more demand, and it doesn't matter really how we spend it, as long as it adds demand, no matter what the long-term benefits are. You have influential guys like Krugman who advocate not just more deficit spending but what I find to be more ironic is tremendously loose monetary policy. He hoots and hollers about how Bernanke should continue to print more money and raise the fed's inflationary preferred target, but what is lost in his ramblings are the effects of these policies on low to lower income Americans. Doesn't he understand that as a result of these policies, that the price of oil, gasoline and food have all gone higher? Doesn't he realize that this is a tremendously hidden regressive tax on the very same people that supposedly advocates for? Doesn't he see that these policies have hurt older retired folks who are risk averse and that largely park their money in fixed income investments, bonds, CD's and savings accounts? Obviously Krugman isn't in charge of the FED, but Ben Bernanke is, and he's not much better. After all, he is "helicopter Ben", and the president recently appointed two more voting members that advocate even more loose monetary policy than Bernanke. I'm not optimistic.
Rob's House Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Unfortunately, the "greatest" economic minds believe that we should pump the primer and continue to spend to add more demand, and it doesn't matter really how we spend it, as long as it adds demand, no matter what the long-term benefits are. You have influential guys like Krugman who advocate not just more deficit spending but what I find to be more ironic is tremendously loose monetary policy. He hoots and hollers about how Bernanke should continue to print more money and raise the fed's inflationary preferred target, but what is lost in his ramblings are the effects of these policies on low to lower income Americans. Doesn't he understand that as a result of these policies, that the price of oil, gasoline and food have all gone higher? Doesn't he realize that this is a tremendously hidden regressive tax on the very same people that supposedly advocates for? Doesn't he see that these policies have hurt older retired folks who are risk averse and that largely park their money in fixed income investments, bonds, CD's and savings accounts? Obviously Krugman isn't in charge of the FED, but Ben Bernanke is, and he's not much better. After all, he is "helicopter Ben", and the president recently appointed two more voting members that advocate even more loose monetary policy than Bernanke. I'm not optimistic. Speaking of Krugman, the fact that he said 9/11 was good for the economy and didn't go down as the village idiot of the economic world tells you all you need to know about the level of economic understanding in the mass media.
B-Large Posted July 27, 2012 Author Posted July 27, 2012 You are correct, but since we cannot even trim back the annual growth of spending on programs, without being accused of "slashing" and "cutting to the bone", I am discouraged that we have (even now) reached the point where common sense will prevail. If only there was a vocal group pf Americans warning us about the over-reaching growth of government......(cough, cough T.E.A. Party, cough) I think that is what is so concerning, B. If this was a short-term issue and the economy woudl be back cranking and popping of the tax revenue, I would not be as worried (That does not mean we can't cut back, way back..) But, I just get this feeling this is going to be our monkey on the back for a long time.... right now, we should be cutting back non-essentials since it does not look like fiscal stimulus or expanding credit is not going to help much....
/dev/null Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 right now, we should be cutting back non-essentials But how do you define non-essentials? What percentage of Americans (Legal and otherwise) receive some type of Government Assistance? How many students receive Federal Student Loans? What percentage of mortgages are owned by Fannie/Freddie? How many businesses receive some kind of subsidy or grant? Everybody is for cutting Government spending and handouts. Everybody is for ending waste fraud and abuse Just cut it from the other guys handout
B-Large Posted July 27, 2012 Author Posted July 27, 2012 But how do you define non-essentials? What percentage of Americans (Legal and otherwise) receive some type of Government Assistance? How many students receive Federal Student Loans? What percentage of mortgages are owned by Fannie/Freddie? How many businesses receive some kind of subsidy or grant? Everybody is for cutting Government spending and handouts. Everybody is for ending waste fraud and abuse Just cut it from the other guys handout https://www.cfda.gov/downloads/CFDA_2011.pdf There are 2,839 pages of places to consider.... LOL.... there is 10-15% in there to cut out easily without anyone dying in the streets... I promise
Oxrock Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 "It Worked" . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS5FJR34C5U
Taro T Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 O'RLY? Sooooo, you like the job President Obama's been doing? Yep. Why? He had a plan and it worked. It did?!?!? Yep. How do you know it worked? / Why do you think it worked well? He told me it did. Sooooo, you're planning on voting for President Obama? Depends. Depends on what? Whether I can get an ID in time. I've only got 3 months left to get one and I've heard it can take up to 10 years.
/dev/null Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Sooooo, you like the job President Obama's been doing? Not really. The O'RLY was in response to what Obama said He had a plan and it worked. Obama != Hanibal Smith from the A Team How do you know it worked? / Why do you think it worked well? He told me it did. Well duh. If Obama said so it has to be true Sooooo, you're planning on voting for President Obama? I'm planning on watching the poll numbers in Virginia. If it's close I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. If it looks like one or the other is going to win, I plan on voting for Gary Johnson Whether I can get an ID in time. I've only got 3 months left to get one and I've heard it can take up to 10 years. If you need an ID to buy why don't you need an ID to vote?
Gary M Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 "It Worked" . You do realize that he isn't lying!!!! He has done exactly what he set out to do. And when anyone pointed out his true beliefs they were called racists and birthers. “I get up every morning thinking today I’m going to make a difference. Today I’m going to end capitalism. Today I’m going to make a revolution. I go to bed every night disappointed but…I’m back again tomorrow.” Bill Ayers http://www.rightwingnews.com/capitalism/every-morning-when-he-wakes-up-bill-ayers-wonders-how-he-can-destroy-capitalism/
Taro T Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Not really. The O'RLY was in response to what Obama said That was clear. Post was meant to reply to post above yours. Obama != Hanibal Smith from the A Team Well duh. If Obama said so it has to be true I'm planning on watching the poll numbers in Virginia. If it's close I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. If it looks like one or the other is going to win, I plan on voting for Gary Johnson If you need an ID to buy why don't you need an ID to vote? Because you can buy beer with a fake ID? Being in NY, it doesn't really matter who I vote for. If my vote ends up being the difference maker, then the President ABSOLUTELY isn't getting re-elected.
Recommended Posts