goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 31, 2013, 08:39:18 AM
-
Contracted.
Looking forward to hearing why
a) this isn't B.O.'s fault
b) this can be viewed as a positive
c) we need to increase deficit spending, OR why this has nothing to do with deficit spending
-
Technical recovery meet technical recession.
-
It's already been dubbed the most beautiful reduction in GDP in U.S. history.
-
He inherited a mess
-
It's already been dubbed the most beautiful reduction in GDP in U.S. history.
You mean contraction, not reduction.
-
It's already been dubbed the most beautiful reduction in GDP in U.S. history.
You mean contraction, not reduction.
Okay
-
It's already been dubbed the most beautiful reduction in GDP in U.S. history.
You mean contraction, not reduction.
Okay
i agree that it's beautiful though, there has never been a smaller one.
-
It's already been dubbed the most beautiful reduction in GDP in U.S. history.
You mean contraction, not reduction.
Okay
i agree that it's beautiful though, there has never been a smaller one.
The new paradigm: Contraction is good, as long as it's you know, small.
-
He blamed it on lower defense spending.
-
He blamed it on lower defense spending.
Government spending was 1.5% lower for the quarter. :dunno:
-
"Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent."
The reason for the drop in defense spending (or at least a sizable reason) is the war drawdown:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F51092be9eab8ea590e00003d-612-459%2Fscreen%2520shot%25202013-01-30%2520at%25209.18.13%2520am.jpg&hash=b04ef3fdbdd3d389658a18d4b70a000e61838a95)
The rest of the economy is actually doing pretty well:
"Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 13.9 percent, compared with an increase of 8.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent. Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.1 percent; it was unchanged in the third quarter. Equipment and software increased 12.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 2.6 percent in the third. Real residential fixed investment increased 15.3 percent, compared with an increase of 13.5 percent."
So basically, this is exactly what conservatives should want. The government is decreasing spending, which has lead to a decrease in GDP. The formula for GDP is quite simple: GDP = C + I + G + (exports - imports). Spending cuts and a smaller government will lead to a decrease in GDP, unless that decrease is offset by an increase in the other factors.
-
That's a tricky y-axis there. Why not put it in real dollars or even inflation adjusted dollars?
-
"Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent."
The reason for the drop in defense spending (or at least a sizable reason) is the war drawdown:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F51092be9eab8ea590e00003d-612-459%2Fscreen%2520shot%25202013-01-30%2520at%25209.18.13%2520am.jpg&hash=b04ef3fdbdd3d389658a18d4b70a000e61838a95)
The rest of the economy is actually doing pretty well:
"Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the third. Durable goods increased 13.9 percent, compared with an increase of 8.9 percent. Nondurable goods increased 0.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent. Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 1.8 percent in the third. Nonresidential structures decreased 1.1 percent; it was unchanged in the third quarter. Equipment and software increased 12.4 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 2.6 percent in the third. Real residential fixed investment increased 15.3 percent, compared with an increase of 13.5 percent."
So basically, this is exactly what conservatives should want. The government is decreasing spending, which has lead to a decrease in GDP. The formula for GDP is quite simple: GDP = C + I + G + (exports - imports). Spending cuts and a smaller government will lead to a decrease in GDP, unless that decrease is offset by an increase in the other factors.
Conservatives have always been trying to increase the "other factors". Unfortunately, Bush II was not a conservative. Now we have a government that is quickly becoming the driving force of the GDP. Sad.
-
:lol:
Guys, the economy is roaring, despite the technical recession. Thanks OregonSmock :lol:
Also LOL at the "war drawdown"
-
:lol:
Guys, the economy is roaring, despite the technical recession. Thanks OregonSmock :lol:
Also LOL at the "war drawdown"
Serious question, why is it a bad thing that the gov is trying to cut out of control defense spending?
-
:lol:
Guys, the economy is roaring, despite the technical recession. Thanks OregonSmock :lol:
Also LOL at the "war drawdown"
Serious question, why is it a bad thing that the gov is trying to cut out of control defense spending?
Even if you assume the convoluted graph is accurate, a ~$20B reduction in defense spending this quarter wouldn't have a 0.1 effect on GDP. The economy is dogshit.
As for taking the parrot for the sociopathic obama apologists post at face value, well that's your problem. Pretty sure the left has used the same shrinking gdp argument to attack conservatives in Europe. Not surprised those attacks remained overseas.
-
I will take any spending cuts I can get. Cheer up
-
I will take any spending cuts I can get. Cheer up
Probably has more to do with a sequestration that didn't end up happening than actual cuts. A negative gdp number is a horrible sign and no reason to search out false silver linings.
-
"Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent."
The reason for the drop in defense spending (or at least a sizable reason) is the war drawdown:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F51092be9eab8ea590e00003d-612-459%2Fscreen%2520shot%25202013-01-30%2520at%25209.18.13%2520am.jpg&hash=b04ef3fdbdd3d389658a18d4b70a000e61838a95)
honestly, do you know how to read and comprehend this 'data'? Please tell me that you do, so I can call you fos.
-
"Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 15.0 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.4 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.7 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent."
The reason for the drop in defense spending (or at least a sizable reason) is the war drawdown:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F51092be9eab8ea590e00003d-612-459%2Fscreen%2520shot%25202013-01-30%2520at%25209.18.13%2520am.jpg&hash=b04ef3fdbdd3d389658a18d4b70a000e61838a95)
honestly, do you know how to read and comprehend this 'data'? Please tell me that you do, so I can call you fos.
Do you have any facts of your own to present? What is it about this data that you don't like?
-
I have a fact to present: 4Q12 GDP -0.1%
Here's another: 4 straight years of record deficit spending.
Here's another: 4 straight years of elevated unemployment . . . declining labor participation . . . record welfare recipients
Completely unacceptable. The complicit are as guilty as their incompetent leader.
-
As I said in another thread, with the acceleration in execustive branch power grabbing by this administration, we can now lay the entirety of the current economic malaise on their lap, they own it.
-
As I said in another thread, with the acceleration in execustive branch power grabbing by this administration, we can now lay the entirety of the current economic malaise on their lap, they own it.
You're such a clown. We went to war with Iraq based on a bunch of lies and forged documents, and you accuse the current administration of "power grabbing." Just admit that you hate liberals and anything President Obama proposes.
-
As I said in another thread, with the acceleration in execustive branch power grabbing by this administration, we can now lay the entirety of the current economic malaise on their lap, they own it.
You're such a clown. We went to war with Iraq based on a bunch of lies and forged documents, and you accuse the current administration of "power grabbing." Just admit that you hate liberals and anything President Obama proposes.
I don't hate liberals, I hate hypocrites . . . and what does the war in Iraq have to do with the current accleration in Executive Branch Power/Power Grab?
NOTHING
-
As I said in another thread, with the acceleration in execustive branch power grabbing by this administration, we can now lay the entirety of the current economic malaise on their lap, they own it.
You're such a clown. We went to war with Iraq based on a bunch of lies and forged documents, and you accuse the current administration of "power grabbing." Just admit that you hate liberals and anything President Obama proposes.
I don't hate liberals, I hate hypocrites . . . and what does the war in Iraq have to do with the current accleration in Executive Branch Power/Power Grab?
NOTHING
How is anyone being a hypocrite? I would rather have President Obama making decisions at the Executive level than Bush or any of the other Republican nominees of the past few years. Perhaps we need some Judicial oversight when it comes to the drone program. I don't disagree with that. The truth though is that we're dealing with an enemy who has no regard for laws or the legal system. We've been trying to fight terrorism with two hands tied our backs. My personal opinion is that the drone program is a better alternative than invading sovereign countries like Iraq and putting American troops on the ground. If that make me a hypocrite, I will wear that badge proudly.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
We don't really know whether or not torture is still going on. There are plenty of countries still working with the CIA holding prisoners indefinitely for the US.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
We don't really know whether or not torture is still going on. There are plenty of countries still working with the CIA holding prisoners indefinitely for the US.
Have you seen Zero Dark Thirty yet? Just curious.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
We don't really know whether or not torture is still going on. There are plenty of countries still working with the CIA holding prisoners indefinitely for the US.
Have you seen Zero Dark Thirty yet? Just curious.
No, but I would like to.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
We don't really know whether or not torture is still going on. There are plenty of countries still working with the CIA holding prisoners indefinitely for the US.
Have you seen Zero Dark Thirty yet? Just curious.
No, but I would like to.
I just saw it last night. Excellent movie. You would enjoy it, imo.
-
Hmmmmm, so blowing up people and everything within 200 feet of them (including children) isnt invading? That's interesting. Low droneIQ, but don't we need someone on the ground to ID the target and confirm the kills? Not invading either?
Regardless, the economy still sucks. But that's probably just as complex than the nuances of what constitutes "invading a sovereign land" like the country of Taliban, so what's the point?
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
When I said "policies of the previous administration" I wasn't talking about Iraq dumbass . . . that's all you ever go to, Iraq, because you haven't got crap otherwise. Drone Strikes, Rendition, Patriot Act, NDAA etc. etc. all started under the previous administration, hated by the left . . . only to be enhanced and amplified under this administration.
-
You do understand that the vast majority of the policies that Obama is carrying forward in the fight against "terra" were enacted during the previous administration right? Those were policies that the left literally marched on the streets about . . . now, outside of scant few, crickets. Hypocrites . . . entire coalitions, PAC's etc. etc. were established by the left to protest and make those policies known. Now the vast majority of people engaged in those activities either support the same policies completely or remain silent . . . for one reason, and one reason only.
You are so full of crap, man. The left was outspoken against the war in Iraq and torture. How has Obama continued those policies? Please tell me. You're more upset about the perceived hypocrisy from the left than you were about the actual war in Iraq. Like I've said before, you are nothing more than an anti-Obama Republican. Congrats.
When I said "policies of the previous administration" I wasn't talking about Iraq dumbass . . . that's all you ever go to, Iraq, because you haven't got crap otherwise. Drone Strikes, Rendition, Patriot Act, NDAA etc. etc. all started under the previous administration, hated by the left . . . only to be enhanced and amplified under this administration.
I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act or the fact that the Executive branch is essentially judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to our drone program. However, I'm also not a big fan of time-wasting, inefficient government bureaucracy that forces our military and our country to try to fight the enemy with two hands tied behind our back. If a terrorist is plotting a mass murder in a country like Pakistan, and we have a drone capable of stopping the attack, should we have to wait for someone from an office in DC to confirm the kill, or should the CIA and the military experts be able to make that decision on their own? Perhaps there should be an element of the Judicial branch working right alongside the people who make these decisions, but take off your tin foil hat for a minute and accept the reality of the situation.
-
It's no tinfoil hat, it's front page news.
http://livingunderdrones.org/report/
The foreign press is also all over the factual reality that the so called terrorists have Western Intelligence fingerprints all over them with the latest poster child being Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the so called "mastermind" of the Algerian gas field attack/kidnappings. He's got CIA all over him since the days of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his recruitment from North African (a so called "African Arab" as the CIA liked to say back then) by the CIA and the ISI.
When you need an excuse for the continuous expansion of AFRICOM and it's related direct and supported operations (like with the French in Mali) in North Africa, what better cover story is there than the "fight on terra"??
What better way to justify having a permanent military/intelligence presence in Central Asia and all that comes with it, than by having a constant "fighting terrorism" cover story? Want to create more terrorists, then kill a lot of innocent people with drones.
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Zbigniew Brzezinski-The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives page 211.
-
So Dax... you think that the threat of terrorism doesn't really exist? Is that what I'm gathering?
-
He won't respond unless you make a passive aggressive statement followed by .......
-
So Dax... you think that the threat of terrorism doesn't really exist? Is that what I'm gathering?
What part of my post even hints that the threat of terrorism doesn't exist?
Who are the threats? Who created the threats? Who recruited the threats? Who runs the threats?
For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” Zibignew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard, Page 30
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." Zibignew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard, Page 31
-
So Dax... you think that the threat of terrorism doesn't really exist? Is that what I'm gathering?
What part of my post even hints that the threat of terrorism doesn't exist?
This part:
...the so called terrorists have Western Intelligence fingerprints all over them with the latest poster child being Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the so called "mastermind" of the Algerian gas field attack/kidnappings. He's got CIA all over him since the days of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his recruitment from North African (a so called "African Arab" as the CIA liked to say back then) by the CIA and the ISI.
And this part:
When you need an excuse for the continuous expansion of AFRICOM and it's related direct and supported operations (like with the French in Mali) in North Africa, what better cover story is there than the "fight on terra"??
And this part:
What better way to justify having a permanent military/intelligence presence in Central Asia and all that comes with it, than by having a constant "fighting terrorism" cover story?
And this part:
Want to create more terrorists, then kill a lot of innocent people with drones.
-
Not one single part said terrorism wasn't a threat Beems? No where did I say people weren't dying, no where did I say that there would be no more terrorist attacks.
-
Not one single part said terrorism wasn't a threat Beems? No where did I say people weren't dying, no where did I say that there would be no more terrorist attacks.
:rolleyes:
-
I feel the same way in tryinig to discuss this with you Beems, you just look at it as a "kill the bad guys" scenario when we created the bad guys and in many cases either run the bad guys ourselves or outsource it to others to fund and run for us.
-
I feel the same way in tryinig to discuss this with you Beems, you just look at it as a "kill the bad guys" scenario when we created the bad guys and in many cases either run the bad guys ourselves or outsource it to others to fund and run for us.
I'm not disputing that a lot of crazy stuff goes on within the CIA and throughout the world, but at the end of the day, a terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of whether or not they used to be an ally or an enemy. This war between Muslims and Christians has been going on now for centuries. It's not going to disappear all of a sudden. It sucks but it's the world we live in. Freedom isn't free.
-
I feel the same way in tryinig to discuss this with you Beems, you just look at it as a "kill the bad guys" scenario when we created the bad guys and in many cases either run the bad guys ourselves or outsource it to others to fund and run for us.
I'm not disputing that a lot of crazy stuff goes on within the CIA and throughout the world, but at the end of the day, a terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of whether or not they used to be an ally or an enemy. This war between Muslims and Christians has been going on now for centuries. It's not going to disappear all of a sudden. It sucks but it's the world we live in. Freedom isn't free.
Translation, "Kill them there terraists."
-
I feel the same way in tryinig to discuss this with you Beems, you just look at it as a "kill the bad guys" scenario when we created the bad guys and in many cases either run the bad guys ourselves or outsource it to others to fund and run for us.
I'm not disputing that a lot of crazy stuff goes on within the CIA and throughout the world, but at the end of the day, a terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of whether or not they used to be an ally or an enemy. This war between Muslims and Christians has been going on now for centuries. It's not going to disappear all of a sudden. It sucks but it's the world we live in. Freedom isn't free.
Translation, "Kill them there terraists."
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-
How do you respond when all you said was every lame ass cliché that until a Democrat was elected president many on the left mocked said clichés repeatedly?
How do you respond when someone has such a simplistic view of the world?
In a post cold war world, the U.S. military/intelligence/industrial complex needed an enemy, and some really smart folks realized they'd get one by using what they already created. As Glenn Greenwald so correctly pointed out, this administration is only amplifying and expanding on the desires of PNAC, an entity that so many on the left melted down over 5-6-7 years ago.
-
suck it
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/economy/us-economy-barely-grew-in-fourth-quarter-revision-shows.html?_r=0
-
lame stream media manipulations
keep being a sheep