PLUNGE: GROWTH FALLS TO 2.2%...

[brotherplanet]

While it's not horrific news, President's tend not to get re-elected when this sort of stuff happens during an election year. If the Republicans actually had a strong candidate Obama wouldn't stand a chance this November, but as it is, the whole thing is up in the air.


US Economy Grows at Tepid 2.2% Pace; Misses Estimates

U.S. economic growth cooled in the first quarter as businesses cut back on investment and restocked shelves at a moderate pace, but stronger demand for automobiles softened the blow

Gross domestic product [cnbc explains] expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday in its advance estimate, moderating from the fourth quarter's 3 percent rate.

While that was below economists' expectations for a 2.5 percent pace, a surge in consumer spending took some of the sting from the report. However, growth was still stronger than analysts' predictions early in the quarter for an expansion below 1.5 percent.

Although the details were mixed, the GDP report offered a somewhat better picture of growth compared with the fourth quarter, when inventory building accounted for nearly two thirds of the economy's growth. In the first quarter, demand from consumers took up the slack.

Consumer spending which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, increased at a 2.9 percent rate - the fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 2010. That compared to a 2.1 percent rise in the fourth quarter.

There were some signs of underlying strength, with even home construction rising at its fastest pace since the second quarter of 2010, thanks to the unusually warm winter.

But business spending fell for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2009, with investment in equipment and software rising at its slowest pace since the recession ended.

Business spending fell at a 2.1 percent pace after rising 5.2 percent in the fourth quarter.

The report will probably not change views on monetary policy. Federal Reserve [cnbc explains] Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday expressed comfort with the current stance of Fed policy, but held out the prospect of more bond buying if the economy deteriorated.

Americans stepped up spending on automobiles in the first quarter, with motor vehicle sales rising by the most in four years. Part of that reflected pent-up demand after last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan disrupted supplies and left showrooms bereft of popular models.

And encouraged by a spurt in job growth, some households may have replaced older vehicles after tightening their belts during the 2007-09 recession. Motor vehicle output contributed 1.12 percentage points to first-quarter GDP growth.

But with the labor market showing early signs of fatigue after employment growth averaged 246,000 per month between December and February, consumer spending could soften in the second quarter.

Some gauges of regional factory activity eased as the second quarter started, and consumer confidence ebbed. In addition, first-time applications for unemployment benefits have spiked in recent weeks, although many economists pin the rise on seasonal quirks.

While the unseasonably warm weather helped the economy by boosting home building and renovations, it undercut demand for utilities, spending at ski resorts and sales of winter apparel.

As a result, weather was probably not the biggest contributor to growth during the quarter.

Inventories also helped GDP growth, just not as much as in the fourth quarter. Inventories increased $69.5 billion after rising $52.2 billion in the fourth quarter.

The change in inventories contributed just over half a percentage point to GDP growth compared to 1.81 percentage points in the fourth quarter.

Excluding inventories, GDP is rose at a 1.6 percent rate. In the fourth quarter, the comparable figure was just 1.1 percent.

Elsewhere, growth in the first quarter was held back by a another drop in government defense spending, which confounded expectations for a strong rebound. An increase in exports was offset by a rise imports, causing trade to have virtually no impact on growth.

Separately, civilian employment costs rose more modestly by 0.4 percent during the first quarter, primarily because growth in benefits slowed after a sharp rise in last year's fourth quarter, Labor Department data showed on Friday.

The gain in employee costs was slightly lower than the 0.5 percent rise forecast by analysts surveyed by Reuters. Costs had increased 0.5 percent in the final three months of 2011.

Benefit costs, which account for 30 percent of compensation, grew by 0.5 percent in the first quarter after a sharp 0.7 percent rise in last year's fourth quarter.

Wages and salaries — the other 70 percent of costs — were up 0.5 percent in the first three months this year, a pickup from the 0.3 percent gain posted in last year's closing quarter.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/47202822

[DEATH ROW JOE]

While it's not horrific news, President's tend not to get re-elected when this sort of stuff happens during an election year. If the Republicans actually had a strong candidate Obama wouldn't stand a chance this November, but as it is, the whole thing is up in the air.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. The last president re-elected was Bush in 2004. So let's look at Q1 2004 to see whether "president's tend not to get re-elected when this sort of stuff happens during an election year."

GDP = Public (Consumption & Investment) + Private (Consumption & Investment) + Trade

Q1 2004
Public (Consumption & Investment) change= .35%
Private (Consumption & Investment) change = 2.85%
Trade change = -.54%

Q1 2012:
Public (Consumption & Investment) change = -.60%
Private (Consumption & Investment) change = 2.81%
Trade change = -.01%

Private sector in Q1 2012 is growing as strong as it was in Q1 2004. In Q1 2012 private investment is much stronger and consumption of services is weaker than Q1 2004.

The public sector is contracting in Q1 2012 while it was expanding in Q1 2004.

So the story here is a contracting public sector slowing down growth. Had the public sector expanded at the same rate as Q1 2004, growth would be 3.1%.

Private sector growth is just as strong in Q1 2012 as it was in Q1 2004 and Bush was re-elected in 2004. So you are proven wrong again. Presidents do get re-elected on the type of numbers released today, unless you think Obama's re-election chances are diminished by a contracting public sector.

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product

[brotherplanet]

Bush was so incredibly polarizing he became an exception to the rule. Also, the economy wasn't as bad at the time of his re-election.

There was also a key word in the first sentence of my post above, making your entire response an example of knee-jerk reaction silliness.

"tend."

[Danzig in the Dark]

Bush was so incredibly polarizing he became an exception to the rule. Also, the economy wasn't as bad at the time of his re-election.

There was also a key word in the first sentence of my post above, making your entire response an example of knee-jerk reaction silliness.

"tend."

Your weasel word, sorry, "key word" does not invalidate DRJ's facts nor cancel out your ignorance. You should easily be able to provide examples of presidents who tended to not get elected under similar conditions.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Bush was so incredibly polarizing he became an exception to the rule. Also, the economy wasn't as bad at the time of his re-election.

There was also a key word in the first sentence of my post above, making your entire response an example of knee-jerk reaction silliness.

"tend."

LMFAO, what a pathetic response. Your post was a knew-jerk response to a news story. You had a hunch and you did not take 2 seconds to check the facts to see whether presidents have won re-election on weaker numbers. Now you're trying to lead us to believe that you were expressing an informed opinion. You're not only stupid, you're also dishonest.

Let's go back to Clinton in 96 and see what his numbers looked like. These numbers come from Table 1.1.2 on the BEA website which weights real GDP growth by % of GDP to determine contributions to GDP.

Guess what asshole? They're nearly identical to Baby Bush's Q1 election year numbers. Under Clinton, govt spending contributed .5% to growth in Q1 1996. Under Obama, govt spending reduced growth by .6%.

Had the public sector expanded under Obama as it did under Clinton in Q1 1996, then real GDP would have grown 3.3% in Q1 2012. Growth in Q1 1996 was 2.8%. Again, it comes down to a contracting public sector under Obama.

Private domestic investment contributed .77% under Obama and .76% under Clinton. That was when the internet boom was taking off under Clinton. Private investment is strong contributor to growth under Obama.



Now let's go back to the other presidents who lost re-election. We'll compare Carter to Obama. Carter's numbers were far weaker than Obama's so his numbers do not support your claim that there is a tendency to lose re-election on similiar number since the numbers were not similar. The private sector was crashing in Q1 1980.




Now let's look at Ford and Bush Sr to see whether they support your theory. Guess what? The fucking economy was booming in Q1 1976. It grew 9 percent. Now look at Q1 1992. Bush Sr was putting up strong numbers in Q1 1992. Real GDP grew 4.5%. Personal consumption expenditures made clear the economy was rebounding from the 91 recession.



So there is not one fucking piece of evidence to support your claim that presidents tend to lose re-election on the numbers that were posted in Q1 2012. That was your knee-jerk response to the article and you never took two seconds to check to see whether your hunch was correct. It's not. Ford and Bush Sr lost re-election despite very strong economic numbers. Ford lost because of Watergate and Bush Sr lost because of Perot. Q1 in the year of the election was not the determinative factor. Carter lost re-relection on much weaker numbers. Clinton and Bush Jr won re-election on similar numbers.

If you are looking at a tendency here based on the numbers posted today, it is that Obama will win re-election since his numbers are comparable to the last two presidents who won re-election.

You also claim the 2004 economy was "wasn't as bad at the time of his re-election." You have no way of knowing what the economy will look like in Nov 2012. Currently, private sector job growth and capacity utilization in 2012 are identical to 2004. The unemployment rate higher because there was a severe recession during which 10 million private sector jobs were wiped out over 2 years. If you are voting based on the unemployment rate, then you are blaming Obama for a recession that started in Dec 2007. So you are wrong as well when you claim that the economy was better in 2004 than in 2012. It wasn't.



You spewed a lot of stupidity in a very short post. That's your nature. You do that in almost every post. In fact, you are very efficient at expressing stupidity. You can express a massive amount of stupidity in very few words. There is no better example of that than this sentence:

"Bush was so incredibly polarizing he became an exception to the rule."

Let's face reality. You're a fucking moron.

I'm sure you will come back with something though and I'm sure I will laugh at your stupidity again. Look forward to your resopnse asshole.

[brotherplanet]

This whole, "stupid," "moron" way you have of posting is so 10 years ago. I didn't even realize angry people were still so prevalent on the net. Haven't seen this silly behavior in years.

Thanks for sharing your anger issues with the rest of the class.

Though you really should look up the word, "tend." Developing a basic knowledge of reading comprehension might actually help before you post.

[KneelandBobDylan]

This whole, "stupid," "moron" way you have of posting is so 10 years ago. I didn't even realize angry people were still so prevalent on the net. Haven't seen this silly behavior in years.

Thanks for sharing your anger issues with the rest of the class.

Though you really should look up the word, "tend." Developing a basic knowledge of reading comprehension might actually help before you post.

You were angry enough about it to post it.

[brotherplanet]

So now when we post an article we're angry? Really? Did I seem angry in my comment above the article? Did you add a tone of voice while you were reading or something?

When I started out with, "While it's not horrific news," you thought I was angry? That actually sounds like the opening of an angry statement?

I'm just trying to figure this out.

When we post something that's not good news we must be angry? So if I posted the unemployment rate went down .02 percent I would be jumping with joy?

I'm just trying to cover all the angles here.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Though you really should look up the word, "tend." Developing a basic knowledge of reading comprehension might actually help before you post.

You should.

tend
1   [tend]
verb (used without object)
1.
to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something: The particles tend to unite.
2.
to be disposed toward an idea, emotion, way of thinking, etc.: He tends to be overly optimistic. Her religious philosophy tends toward pantheism.
3.
to lead or conduce, as to some result or resulting condition: measures tending to improved working conditions; Governments are tending toward democracy.
4.
to be inclined to or have a tendency toward a particular quality, state, or degree: This wine tends toward the sweet side.
5.
(of a journey, course, road, etc.) to lead or be directed in a particular direction (usually followed by to, toward, etc.): a path tending toward the beach.
Origin:
1300–50; Middle English tenden < Middle French tendre < Latin tendere to stretch, extend, proceed

Which meaning did you intend and how does it invalidate DRJ's facts?

[Constantine]

Hes gonna attack Iran and the citizens will be proud waving little American flags. Hell get relected...(I hope not, I knew he was a fake from the start)

[Skate4RnR]

What choices do we get? It's a fuckin' joke.

'Specially in a state like Kansas where my vote doesn't count.

[brotherplanet]

What choices do we get? It's a fuckin' joke.

'Specially in a state like Kansas where my vote doesn't count.

Yep... Romeny or Obama = Fucked.