I assume you are speaking of yourself since you neglected to comprehend the original post? It is required by law that BO notifies Congress 30 days in advance of the swap...which he did not. Of course, breaking the law is the norm for this administration. Please let me know if you are still confused about the post or the law.
I'll try to slow it down for you. When I refer to history, I am referring to the previous quarter. As noted, the fact is that Q1's GDP initially came out at plus 1%. After all the information was factored in, the final number was revised minus 2.9%. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. Are you denying these facts?
Therefore, if we reference the calculations from Q1, it is safe to assume the 2nd Quarter +4% will be revised down. Sure, it could go either way. But if we use history as a reference, I'd bet we're looking at more sluggish growth.
Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) told Republicans at a hearing debating a GOP proposal allowing people who like their insurance plans to keep them to just stop whining and swallow this part of ObamaCare. "Your plan is whining. Your plan is suing the president and using taxpayer dollars," she said, changing the subject to another part of Washington drama. Hmm...sounds like an ad hominem attack to me. She continued, "I hope no more 'Saturday Night Live' whining is brought up in legislation because it's not attractive, it's not truthful, and it really does not fit with the dignity of the American people." And if anyone knows about dignity, it's Democrats. Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) noted that the 335,000 people in his state who had their health insurance plans canceled because of ObamaCare are "not whiners." But those people can always seek health insurance on the $840 million federal health exchange.
And I quote 'The initial reading on GDP relies on estimates of trade flows, health-care spending and other aspects of the economy and could be significantly revised in subsequent takes.'
Ironic that with an election season coming up, the lefty economists would come up with tremendous growth?
You really trust these numbers?
I hope it would be revised upward as that would be good for the economy and good for working class Americans. I wouldn't bet on it. I would think it's safe to assume that the numbers will be flat once all the numbers are in. It is good to see there is positive news in spite of BO's policy though.
Columnist Jonah Goldberg: "Given Obama's famously low regard for the Clinton presidency, it's ironic that he keeps stealing from its playbook. Bill Clinton benefited from a government shutdown and impeachment and from the general perception that his enemies were worse than his sins. The difference is that while Clinton was hardly immune to the charge of cynicism, he wasn't trying to shut down the government or get impeached for narrow political advantage. Now Obama is reportedly considering a unilateral amnesty of millions of immigrants here illegally, knowing full well it will spark a fierce political backlash and heighten impeachment talk. No doubt he thinks it's the right thing to do on the merits, with his famous pen and phone. What's less clear is if the merits are his top priority."
Columnist Michelle Malkin: "While cynical politicians prattle on about protecting the American Dream, they’re working together to destroy it. If these elected officials care so much about reducing poverty, why are they working so hard to import more of it from around the world? Leaders in both political parties have thrown struggling Americans under the bus to feed the cheap illegal alien labor machine. ... The real crisis is not at the border. It’s being fomented inside our nation’s capital. The 'border crisis' is a bipartisan D.C. catastrophe of craven politicians abandoning their constitutional duties to defend our sovereignty and put American workers first."
Comedian Argus Hamilton: "The National Security Council met in the White House Monday to discuss the Palestinian and Israeli conflict raging into its third week. We may get involved at the highest level. President Obama is keen to fly to Israel and play the new two-thousand-hole golf course in Gaza."
If last quarter's report was revised down from plus 1% to minus 2.9%, should we assume this quarter will be revised from plus 4.0% to plus 0.1%? Atleast the revised numbers would be consistent, huh?
The Commerce Department released its second quarterly report on the economy and the results are rosy -- for now. The report said the nation's GDP rose 4%. The housing market was mixed from April to June, according to The Wall Street Journal, but "[a]n upturn in inventory building and an acceleration in consumer spending led the broad gains and offset a larger drag from increased imports."
Hopefully this initial figure is somewhat accurate as it shows a nice rebound in the economy. This sunshine-and-flowers report comes after a first quarter when the GDP was first reported growing at a meager 1%, only to be revised downward to a 1% contraction, then revised again to a 2.9% loss. Therefore, a report showing 4% growth is good -- an example of the resiliency of the American economy despite Obama's economic policies -- but I won't be surprised if the Commerce Department makes a few revisions.
The minimum wage applies to only one in 20 workers, most of whom are under 24 or unskilled. A Heritage Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data from all 50 states between 1990 and 2013 found that teenage unemployment rates are higher and labor participation is lower in states with minimum wages greater than the federal minimum. In 2007 and 2008, the federal minimum wage was raised three times, and, as a result, the national teen unemployment nearly doubled.
The economy has improved to some degree, but unemployment and underemployment remain stubbornly high for a large portion of the working population. Teenagers, who stand to earn substantially more as adults if they work during their school-age years, have been priced out of the labor market. Raising the minimum wage again will further hurt their situation. Employers are simply not going to hire young workers with no job experience at $10 an hour. One solution is to create a teen wage of $5 or $6 an hour. Another option would be to let the market determine what a job is worth rather than leave the decision to social engineers in Washington.
In essence, the difference in these two approaches is this: Right-to-work allows for greater access to jobs, while a government mandated minimum wage prices some prospective workers out of those jobs. Which one makes more sense if creating jobs is the objective?
The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis released data this week that is sure to further stir the debate over how to improve wages in America. It turns out that Michigan, which became a right-to-work state in 2012, saw its per-capita personal income rise from $38,291 in 2012 to $39,215 a year later. This was the ninth highest income increase in the country.
Right-to-work laws essentially give workers the opportunity to pursue employment without having to pay dues to unions, who frequently use that money to secure political power at the expense of worker protections. Michigan, a state where unions have held sway for decades, shocked the country when the state's Republican lawmakers passed a right-to-work law. Union-backed Democrats predicted an employment catastrophe, expecting the state to plunge into some sort of feudal system. That didn't happen, and although the one-year gain is modest, it certainly offers encouragement for other states looking to find ways to boost incomes.
Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University, noted in an extensive study released this week, “Incomes rise following the passage of RTW [right-to-work] laws, even after adjusting for substantial population growth that those laws also induce."
It's certainly a better way to go than increasing the minimum wage. The White House and Democrats in Congress still cling to the backwards idea that raising the minimum wage will actually reduce unemployment. But it's hard to see how making workers more expensive to hire will be more attractive to companies looking for help. Then again, liberals aren't known for their skills in economics.
In his weekly address, Barack Obama told us this is the United States, and Americans play by the rules. "The vast majority of American businesses pay their taxes right here in the United States," Obama said. "But when some companies cherry-pick their taxes, it damages the country's finances. It adds to the deficit. It makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep America strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stash offshore." So Obama rose to the White House soapbox to spout the party line about corporate unfairness and economic patriotism. He continued, "Right now, a loophole in our tax laws makes this totally legal -- and I think that's totally wrong. You don't get to pick which rules you play by, or which tax rate you pay, and neither should these companies."
I agree with Obama. Rules are rules, and they can be so hard to follow sometimes. After all, there are rules about announcing prisoner swaps to Congress, limiting freedom of speech to news organizations you don't agree with, immigration rules to enforce, Religious Freedom, and multiple other points listed in that pesky document written 1787 that is fondly called the Constitution...
The Labor Department's Consumer Price Index has accelerated recently and averaged 3.5 percent for the three months ending in June."
Why the 2 percent deception?
Yellen's stated goal is to continue to report inflation as being "the committee's 2 percent objective."
Wait. Is the Fed pushing for more inflation?
Morici writes: "Ms. Yellen is ignoring the Fed mandate to ensure price stability. She has embraced the notion that if she induces enough inflation — in Fed parlance at least 2 percent per annum — the economy will grow more robustly.
That view has lots of support among politically liberal economists who offer little credible evidence... Letting inflation fly, and fibbing about it, seems to be Ms. Yellen's imprint on Fed policy, but it will likely impose devastating costs on ordinary Americans.
Boosting inflation to chase growth by printing money to keep interest rates low will make bankers and private equity firms happy — and they donate considerable sums to Democratic candidates — but it will beat the heck out of the finances of ordinary Americans."
If transparent inflation becomes policy, how will Krugman backtrack to provide cover for the government?
No wonder the Nobel family wants to abolish the politically polluted prize for economics.
Should official inflation trigger increased payments to these millions of people, this administration's federal deficit would increase greatly. You might not see the 17 Trillion dollar debt increase as the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are not included in the number, but the budget could bust.
As Perriane Boring noted in Forbes this year, "The government has a few resources at its disposal to manipulate the CPI. First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics operates under a veil of secrecy. The raw data used to calculate the CPI is not available to the public. When I asked why, I was told "so companies can't compare prices." This makes very little sense because companies can easily compare prices with data openly available on the internet. It also makes it impossible to audit their findings."
Peter Morici, the University of Maryland economist with an extraordinary track record, recently wrote, "Testifying before Congress last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen cherry-picked data on inflation by noting prices are up, on a year-over-year basis, less than the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent.
Paul Krugman, liberal New York Times columnist and economist whose erroneous predictions and inflammatory opinions have inspired websites, blogs and columns by others detailing his multitude miscalculations, launched a Buk missile of a column at conservatives warning of inflationary government policies.
Yes, the man who predicted with no uncertainty that Greece would give up the Euro and U.S. unemployment under Obama would never exceed 9 percent (the U-3 unemployment rose over 10 percent and "real" unemployment was around 16 percent for most of his term so far) has decided that there is no inflation and anyone who reports on such increases in costs of living or correctly applies historical results of governmental policies producing inflation needs a twelve-step program.
If Krugman really cared about his readers he would be honest about Americans' cost of living instead of aiding and abetting this government's pretense that the CPI (Consumer Price Index) is an accurate gauge of your family's cost of living. After all, isn't that what "inflation" really means to you?
The Federal Government keeps reporting inflation as under 2 percent. Yet to you and I who did not major in economics, when the cost of food increases by 22 percent that definitely is real-world inflation. Anything else is semantics. If your income hasn't increased respective to your food budget increase then that is definitely information worth knowing.
Is the government purposely publishing a falsely low inflation number?
Some believe so. After all, there would be reason for this government to keep inflation low. Consider the millions of Americans who receive Social Security payments, food stamps, federal school lunch programs and other welfare benefits that have a COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) based on CPI.
There was not a more skilled President when it came to dealing with Congress to get things done. Reagan passed legislation (legally unlike BO) to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. One of the many goals he met included cutting taxes and Government expenditures. He also strengthened our defensive forces like no other President.
Are you so clueless that you don't know how to use the 'ignore user' feature? You won't ever have to see a post by either of us again. I have had shares of NTI for over a year. Even if I didn't, who are you to tell anyone what to post on a message board? Pathetic...
CNBC recently interviewed the teleprompter in chief "You’ve said a bunch of times that [we should be] getting the wealthy to pay a little bit more, and you’ve succeeded in raising that top tax rate to 39%, or rolling back the tax cuts. Is there a limit there? Is there a limit to how much you believe the government should take from an individual in terms of a top tax rate?" BO replied "You know, I don't have a particular number in mind, but if you look at our history we are still well below what, you know, the marginal tax rates were under Dwight Eisenhower or, you know, all the way up even through Ronald Reagan. Tax rates are still lower on average for most folks. And what that means is that we probably can make some more headway in closing loopholes that folks take advantage of. As opposed to necessarily raising marginal rates." Where is this guy getting his facts? Walrat's basement? Reagan lowered taxes from a 70% top rate to 28%. And Obama seems to think there's lots of wiggle room to hike taxes without crushing the economy. But a 1970s-style tax policy is wrong for America.