Why a 2.5 percent growth rate might be better than you think

As we noted this morning, the nation’s gross domestic product grew by 2.5 percent in the 3rd quarter, which isn’t great by any means. It’s better than the 1.3 percent in the 2nd quarter, or the 0.9 percent in the first quarter. But we have to do better. Overall, the projections I’ve seen predict 2.0 percent growth next quarter and on into 2012, although those numbers may now rise a bit.

Again, not great.

It started me wondering, though: How does 2.5 percent growth or 2 percent growth compare to the economic growth rate back when we had an MBA president in the White House, rather than this business-hating Marxist?

For example, what was the average annual real GDP growth in President Bush’s second term, from 2005-2008? Anybody care to guess?

Here, I’ll give you some choices:

A. 1.85 percent
B. 2.65 percent
C. 3.2 percent
D. 4.1 percent

The answer is A., 1.85 percent.

Now, maybe it’s unfair to focus on Bush’s last four years. Maybe we should look at his presidency as a whole: What was the average annual growth rate of real GDP from 2001 to 2008?

Was it:

A. 2.04 percent
B. 2.7 percent
C. 3.1 percent
D. 3.5 percent

The answer, once again, is A. In the eight years of the MBA presidency, real GDP grew by an average annual rate of 2.04 percent. I just thought that might be useful for those who want to keep things in perspective.

– Jay Bookman

504 comments Add your comment

Butch Cassidy

October 27th, 2011
3:38 pm

FIRST!

Oh, everything is Obamas fault! Do I get a double scoop of BS?

Keep Up the Good Fight!

October 27th, 2011
3:39 pm

Perspective? When did that enter into the “blame Obama” mantra?

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
3:40 pm

So again you confirm to many of us with our heads above sand that indeed Obama is Bush-Lite.

Only problem though I was under the impression you felt GWB was not a good president, as I do.

So are you saying Bush did well like Obama or that Obama is doing bad like Bush?

Butch Cassidy

October 27th, 2011
3:41 pm

Keep – “Perspective? When did that enter into the “blame Obama” mantra?”

Perspective Schmective, It’a ALL Obamas fault. The elevator in my building was out this morning, and I knew it was Obamas fault. Afterall, my elevator worked all during the Bush administration, so it MUST be Obama! :)

Kamchak

October 27th, 2011
3:41 pm

WEALTH ENVY!

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
3:41 pm

Can you break it down by year? That 2007-2008 crash (downturn? recession? slump?) may skew a few things for the time frame of which you speak.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
3:42 pm

BAM! Loving the takedowns

1811/0311

October 27th, 2011
3:42 pm

Jay:

That’s pretty boring . Wouldn’t this be a better thread?

Headline: “Chaz blasts ‘disrespectful’ DANCING judges for bullying… “

Adam

October 27th, 2011
3:43 pm

Butch: You get a double dip, not a double scoop :D

Armed Liberal

October 27th, 2011
3:43 pm

2.5 only allows us to tread water employment-wise…

If we were already at full employment I’d be happy.

However, with unemployment where it is, that number is stinky.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
3:44 pm

GS: He’s saying Bush did worse. Read the numbers, dude.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
3:44 pm

Actually, Generation, I’m saying what I always say: It’s silly to attribute economic trends, good or bad, to whoever occupies the White House at any given time. At best, a president is like the oarsman on a whitewater raft: He can try to keep it off the rocks, but in the end he can only go where the river takes him.

That said, I also recognize how the game is played, and information like this does help keep things in their proper perspective.

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
3:45 pm

Generation$crewed,

…you felt GWB was not a good president, as I do.

Are you serious or just being sarcastic?

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
3:45 pm

It’s also why I dislike “There were no jobs created in the whole 2000-2010 time frame” type of argument.

It’s because of the 2007-2009 that skews the whole shebang.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
3:45 pm

Armed Liberal: If we were already at full employment I’d be happy.

Careful. You’re steps away from “Stimulus didn’t fix the problem 100% therefore FAILUUUUURE!”

Butch Cassidy

October 27th, 2011
3:46 pm

Adama – “Butch: You get a double dip, not a double scoop

Sweet! Nothing goes better with a main course of hyperbole and a side of rhetoric! :)

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
3:47 pm

Jay says: “I’m saying what I always say: It’s silly to attribute economic trends, good or bad, to whoever occupies the White House at any given time.”

Ah, there ya go. That’s what I was looking for.

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
3:47 pm

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
3:45 pm

Shouldn’t be that hard to figure out

Libertarian

October 27th, 2011
3:49 pm

Ok everyone….get to your respective sides. Time to duke it out regarding who’s responsible for the wonderful 2.5 percent growth! Is it Obama?? Is it the Republican House? I just don’t know.

Perhaps neither side is responsible?

Stonethrower

October 27th, 2011
3:49 pm

Just took a peek at Kyle’s blog and it’s full of comments from Jay’s rejects.

1811/0311

October 27th, 2011
3:49 pm

Headline: “Muslims say crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights”

Well, there you go ……………………

Armed Liberal

October 27th, 2011
3:50 pm

Adam

October 27th, 2011
3:45 pm

If the stimulus were more like Sweeden we’d be in much better shape than we are today – caveats for deltas in economies aside.

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
3:50 pm

Jay

October 27th, 2011
3:44 pm

“That said, I also recognize how the game is played, and information like this does help keep things in their proper perspective.”

So in other words you know it will trick the dumb folks or those who do not think for themselves….

Eventhough you fully understand it is irrelevant.

Nice play!

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
3:51 pm

Given that response, I guess not, GS.

What IS hard to figure out is the assertion itself…

DebbieDoRight

October 27th, 2011
3:52 pm

OK I’ve found the error in Jay’s diatribe:

Jay: Now, maybe it’s unfair to focus on Bush’s last four years. Maybe we should look at his presidency as a whole: What was the average annual growth rate of real GDP from 2001 to 2008?

What Jay did wrong was he didn’t cherry pick parts of Bush’s presidency that reflected a rise in GDP (such as those years when they were giving away “extra” money with the tax returns and begging people to shop till they dropped).

Jay used FACTS to make his argument. What kinda guy would do that? I mean seriously…..F-A-C-T-S…to make a point? Everyone knows that in order to make a point one must use magic jelly beans that we get from the man that we sold our cow to.

Methinks Jay has gone over to the “Dark Side” and is actually one of those uber-excitable uber-arrogant uber-ridiculous, FACTS people. When you see him walking down the street, make sure you pull your cross out of your pockets and denounce him with it.

It’s the only way to cure him from his use of FACTS.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
3:52 pm

It’s also why I dislike “There were no jobs created in the whole 2000-2010 time frame” type of argument.

It’s because of the 2007-2009 that skews the whole shebang.

I’d make several points in response, Logical.

First, saying that 2007-2009 skews the whole shebang is rather like the old joke about “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?” It’s not exactly an anomaly that you can just shrug off.

Second, those figures don’t include any numbers from 2009. I could have included the first quarter ‘09 numbers, in which GDP fell 8.9 percent, since Bush was still president in part of that time. I didn’t.

Third, let’s take a look at average annual GDP growth just in Bush’s first term: 2.225 percent.

Armed Liberal

October 27th, 2011
3:52 pm

awwwww man, I’m getting moderated and I didn’t call anyone names…

damn you Jay and your liberal bias…

josef

October 27th, 2011
3:53 pm

Yeah, what Jay said at 3:44.

Both of them could have gone for infrastructural projects and not just to pull us out of where we are in relation to jobs and training, but because they’re needed,,,the house is collapsing and no amount of fru-fru grillework is going to do any good…

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
3:54 pm

Libertarian

October 27th, 2011
3:49 pm

May be because christmas is coming up, and most summer vacations recently ended, and thus people are not in as much of a savings mode.

But watch people will say it is one or the others fault, or accomplishment.

Eventhough no legislation has passed that would have cause this or for it to take a negative turn either.

Maybe the best thing all in Washington can do is to do nothing?

Armed Liberal

October 27th, 2011
3:55 pm

or maybe because I spelled Sweden wrong…

Paul

October 27th, 2011
3:56 pm

Whaddya’ expect from a Harvard grad -

:-)

Just shows what happens when theory meets reality?

Logical Dude

“Can you break it down by year? That 2007-2008 crash (downturn? recession? slump?) may skew a few things for the time frame of which you speak”

So we can exempt the first two years of Pres Obama’s time, correct?

Gordon

October 27th, 2011
3:56 pm

One decent quarter and you’re comparing it to entire terms (16 quarters) of another president who had 9/11 to deal with his first term? Come on.

But you’re right that presidents tend to get too much credit and too much blame. My arguments with Obama have more to do with leadership on the deficit than his handling of the economy.

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
3:57 pm

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
3:51 pm

What do you want to talk about now?

Yes it was a serious comment. I didn’t think ole GWB was a good president. I was under the impression from Jay’s articles that he also felt that way. Do you disagree?

i fear you missed the entire point of my post, which Jay got i think judging from his reply.

Or do you think that Presidents have that much of an effect on the economy?

Kamchak

October 27th, 2011
3:58 pm

or maybe because I spelled Sweden wrong…

Usually is an innocent combination of letters.

The Name Lee A-t-w-a-t-e-r won’t go through because of the 2nd-5th letters of the last name.

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
3:59 pm

HI Jay,
(for your point number two @ 3:52) )My example of 2000-2010 was different timeframe than your blog, but it’s a timeframe I’ve seen many times before. It wasn’t supposed to directly relate to your timeframe.

(for point 3) But yes, the 2000-2004 GDP growth is also a good indication of recent groupings of 4 year growth rates. the 2.5 quarterly is okay as long as it continues (okay meaning “okay, but not great”). This year’s annualized will be lower than that unless Q4 is just cooking with activity.

(for point 1) But you didn’t mention it at all in your blog post above? :D

DebbieDoRight

October 27th, 2011
4:00 pm

Lee A-t-w-a-t-e-r was a t-w-a-t? The things you learn on this blog….

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:01 pm

2.5% is better than the anemic rates that have plagued the country so far under Obama’s tenure, but a far cry from the 4% plus he relies on to make his all his plans work out and fully funded.

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
4:01 pm

Paul: So we can exempt the first two years of Pres Obama’s time, correct?

Nope, keep the time in there, but just don’t lay it all on Obama.
Just like the other years, where you shouldn’t lay it all on Bush.

josef

October 27th, 2011
4:01 pm

GORDON

Why not? It puts it in perspective. And which president since FDR had to deal with economic meltdown? As you say, come on…

And I agree with you and Jay “,,,that presidents tend to get too much credit and too much blame.”
But, then, they did try out for head cheerleader and were picked…

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
4:02 pm

Paul,

I left you a lil message downstairs

I hope you get it, seems either my humor is fleeing me or people are a lil sensative today.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
4:02 pm

Libertarian: Perhaps neither side is responsible?

Correct. But also can we then admit that Obama is not actively destroying the economy? I can’t seem to get that admission from anyone.

St Simons - we're on Island time

October 27th, 2011
4:02 pm

Little Nero cokehead wrecked your Ferarri & threw your keys at you

saying “hey man you need to get that thing fixed”

Obama is driving a wrecked Ferrari better than Little Nero drove a new one

and he’s fixing it, while the cons are stealing his tools

while the tool thieves introduce 44 abortion bills & 0 jobs bills
and screech persunull respons-uh-billity

Paul

October 27th, 2011
4:03 pm

Logical Dude

I’ve found it simple to use the Rule of Thumb: “Happens on your watch, you get the credit, or the hit.”

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
4:04 pm

“But, then, they did try out for head cheerleader and were picked”

and teh quaterback usually tried out for that position too, doesn’t mean its his fault when they lose. He gets the blame though from those who don’t know shyte…..eventhough he has no control over the defense or special teams.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:04 pm

One decent quarter and you’re comparing it to entire terms (16 quarters) of another president who had 9/11 to deal with his first term? Come on.

Gordon, in terms of economic impact, 9/11 was barely a pimple on a gnat’s rear end compared to the Great Recession.

Also, real GDP growth in 2010 was 3 percent, so it’s not just one decent quarter.

Libertarian

October 27th, 2011
4:06 pm

Adam

I think Obama is lacking in the leadership department but I do not think it is his goal to destroy the economy. I’m sure he has good intentions.

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:06 pm

“while the tool thieves introduce 44 abortion bills & 0 jobs bills and screech persunull respons-uh-billity”

You should have been around earlier today, you might have learned something new. Jobs bills passed by the House and refused to be taken up in the Senate. Free your mind, Don’t tow the line!

The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
H.R. 872 – Senate has taken no action to date

The Energy Tax Prevention Act
H.R. 910 – Senate has taken no action to date

Disapproval of FCC’s Net Neutrality Regulations
H.J.Res. 37 – Senate has taken no action to date

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
H.R. 2018 – Senate has taken no action to date

Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act
H.R. 2587 – Senate has taken no action to date

Transparency In Regulatory Analysis Of Impacts On The Nation
H.R. 2401 – Senate has taken no action to date

Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2681 – Senate has taken no action to date

EPA Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2250 – Senate has taken no action to date

Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
H.R. 2273 – Senate has taken no action to date

Veterans Opportunity to Work Act
H.R. 2433 – Senate has taken no action to date

Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act
H.R. 1230 – Senate has taken no action to date

Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act
H.R. 1229 – Senate has taken no action to date

Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act
H.R. 1231 – Senate has taken no action to date

The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
H.R. 2021 – Senate has taken no action to date

North American-Made Energy Security Act
H.R. 1938 – Senate has taken no action to date

H.Con.Res. 34

getalife

October 27th, 2011
4:08 pm

There you go again.

Confusing us with facts

Facts don’t matter this cycle.

josef

October 27th, 2011
4:09 pm

generation

Oh, I agree…blaming the quarterback for the loss makes as much sense as blaming the head cheerleader…other than me not knowing sh*t about economics, that’s one of the reasons I tend to stay clear of these threads. I can only go by my own experience and I’m doing as well now as I was under Bush and Carter…

Adam

October 27th, 2011
4:09 pm

Libertarian: I think Obama is lacking in the leadership department but I do not think it is his goal to destroy the economy. I’m sure he has good intentions.

Clever. Or perhaps you missed my point.

Obama is NOT destroying the economy, whether it is his intention or it isn’t. I can’t seem to get anyone on the right to admit this is true. It appears they would rather hold on to the idea that his policies are having a negative effect on the economy. This is demonstrably false.

Don't Tread

October 27th, 2011
4:10 pm

“such as those years when they were giving away “extra” money with the tax returns and begging people to shop till they dropped”

Sounds an awful lot like a “stimulus”, doesn’t it? Oh wait….GWB was in office, so it was a extra money giveaway…my bad.

As far as “begging people to shop till they drop”, isn’t that an awful lot like “don’t cut the govt budget, the govt spending stimulates the economy” argument?

The double standards you people parrot are amazing. :roll:

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
4:12 pm

GS, I guess I did misread it.

The phrasing was a bit awkward, no big whup. Lord knows I’ve gone back and read some of my posts and could barely decipher what I wrote!

Adam

October 27th, 2011
4:12 pm

Zedd: And like I said before, any bill passed that is all about deregulation, tax cuts, or both is NOT a jobs bill. It’s just what Republicans THINK might one day if we pray hard enough create the environment for some other company somewhere else to maybe someday hopefully if we’re lucky create a job.

i.e., NOT job creation bills.

BONUS: No need to reverse a moratorium that hasn’t been in effect for over a year now.

mystified

October 27th, 2011
4:12 pm

Obama isn’t wrecking the economy, liberal policies are. Obama is just driving the steam roller.

JohnnyReb

October 27th, 2011
4:12 pm

Jay, the POTUS is a lot more than an oarsman in a raft. He sets the tone, the goals; he champions the causes, etc. America rejected Obama’s causes last November, but he and the Left ignore that historical event like it didn’t happen. The Recovery policies failed, many not much more than political paybacks, but Obama knows nothing but to double down. No, the recovery would be quicker and better if Barry was AWOL. Instead, Obama marches on destroying the Democratic party and dividing America just so he might get reelected.

Paul

October 27th, 2011
4:13 pm

Generation

As I said earlier, I thought you were having fun – which, evidently you were.

Most of the time. Not some.

St Simons - we're on Island time

October 27th, 2011
4:13 pm

Zedd, my man, there is no free-er mind in Georgia. Come sit under da palm tree (I’m buyin) and let me tell you about the words “craven” & “cynical”

mystified

October 27th, 2011
4:15 pm

So Adam, you don’t like the republican ideas for job creation. Well news flash, they haven’t been tried. We are 3 years into the democrat policies for job creation. How are those working out for you?

getalife

October 27th, 2011
4:16 pm

Cut me another slice of peace and prosperity.

Give me a Dow at 18,000 and no wars.

You know, the Clinton economy, where they give away cars to come to work instead of giving away jobs to make the 1 % richer.

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:16 pm

Adam, your interpretation of a jobs bill probably most certainly differs from mine. I wasn’t aware that you read all the bills listed above entirely understood them all and what they contained. You interpretation of a jobs bill must be to spend more tax payer money right? ‘Cause we need to focus on those public sector jobs more than the private sector like Reid said huh?

1811/0311

October 27th, 2011
4:16 pm

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:17 pm

Well news flash, they haven’t been tried.

Really, Mystified? So what was going on from 2001-2009 under a Republican president and, for the most part, a Republican Congress?

Tax cuts, deregulation …. of course it was tried. And look where it put us.

mystified

October 27th, 2011
4:18 pm

Democrats criticizing republican plans for job creation is like the designer of the Titanic giving lessons on hull construction.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
4:18 pm

mystified: Obama isn’t wrecking the economy, liberal policies are. Obama is just driving the steam roller.

So a 2.5% growth is economy destruction? Hmm. Curious….

So Adam, you don’t like the republican ideas for job creation. Well news flash, they haven’t been tried.

Deregulation and cutting taxes on the top have been tried for more than ten years, arguably up to 31, since the Reagan admin. Do you really not realize that?

We are 3 years into the democrat policies for job creation. How are those working out for you?

Just fine, thanks.

Generation$crewed

October 27th, 2011
4:18 pm

josef

October 27th, 2011
4:09 pm

That will be the sentiment of many at the polls as well, if the unemployment numbers do not change drastically, and teh housing market improves as rapidly.

Regardless of GDP growth and or any other indicating economic factors

carlosgvv

October 27th, 2011
4:18 pm

DebbieDoRight – 3:52

All the dialogue from the Republican debates along with the pronoucements from other Republican politicians show that increasingly Fascist Tea Party Republicans and their stooge followers say “don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind”.

mystified

October 27th, 2011
4:19 pm

Well Jay…That is a fair question. Unfortunately I rate the Bush presidency about as high as you do. I try to forget he was a republican.

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:19 pm

St Simons, thanks and I’ll buy the next round. I’m down with palm trees, sun and surf any day! ;)

Kamchak

October 27th, 2011
4:19 pm

Jay, the POTUS is a lot more than an oarsman in a raft. He sets the tone, the goals; he champions the causes, etc.

So, when unemployment nearly doubled from 5% to almost 10% from Jan 2008 to Jan 2009, it’s Bush’s fault?

Is that what you’re trying to say?

AmVet

October 27th, 2011
4:22 pm

From this morning and worth reprising…

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put this wrecked economy back together again.

Not in three scant years.

Dig in peeps, the middle class LOST ground in the “lost decade” of 2000 – 2010.

For those keeping count, that is four decades in a row of flat-lined income for most of us.

And you really expect this one to be a bed of roses?

And you really think that had the president had an R after his name, things would be all on their way to Groovyville now?

This current travesty has been five administrations and forty years in the making.

But don’t let that big truth get in the way of your petty blame games and limited scope…

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:23 pm

He sets the tone, the goals; he champions the causes, etc.

In other words, he’s the oarsman on the raft.

Adam

October 27th, 2011
4:23 pm

Zedd: I wasn’t aware that you read all the bills listed above entirely understood them all and what they contained. You interpretation of a jobs bill must be to spend more tax payer money right? ‘Cause we need to focus on those public sector jobs more than the private sector like Reid said huh?

I read what the bills represent earlier when someone just as spoonfed as you are posted the exact same thing elsewhere. I found them to be lacking in anything except reducing regulation and taxes. The most interesting part is 1) you don’t realize that doesn’t work and 2) how quickly you turn it to what you assume I must think instead.

My philosophy is actually pretty simple: No New Tax Cuts, and No Indiscriminate Regulation Cuts. Basically, no more tax cuts EVER, for ANYONE. Close loopholes, and responsibly look at regulations without getting rid of the ones that are actually there for a good reason (which is the bulk of them).

As for your thinking on public vs private spending, I think spending needs to be done in both areas. Public spending because public jobs are being cut in droves, and private spending so we can give a boost to the already rising job numbers.

Peadawg

October 27th, 2011
4:26 pm

“business-hating Marxist” – Where’s everyone that was saying yesterday that it’s only the GOP that says this? :)

It’s funny to read both Jay and Kyle’s column on the same subject. Each one spins it their own way, trying to make their ideology look like the correct one.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

October 27th, 2011
4:27 pm

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m with Zedd. We need to get rid of all these regulations and cut taxes some more.

Like my buddy Joe Bill points out, there’s a certain piquant taste to water with a little oil in it. And it makes it go down smooth. We need some fracking big-time and we can’t wait till Deepwater Horizon gets running again.

Ain’t it FNM time yet? I got a Slim Whitman I’m just busting to play.

getalife

October 27th, 2011
4:27 pm

How many jobs did w lose and say he never saw it coming?

I would say w crashed that raft against a rock and it broke into tiny pieces and then handed them to our President.

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:33 pm

Thanks Adam, at least we’ve clarified where you stand now. Spoon fed? Not so much. While conservative minded, I don’t think Republicans are any better than the Democrats. At least “I” can admit both parties are at fault, etc. instead of hailing all things Democrat on daily basis like you do. Blind ideology will get nothing solved. Keep towing the line or free your mind!

Poor Boy from Alabama

October 27th, 2011
4:34 pm

JB,

Prepare yourself for a very long period of high unemployment if you like 2.5% GDP growth.

There’s an economics rule of thumb called Okun’s Law. It basically says that it takes 1% above trend line growth in GDP for a full year to bring down unemployment by half a percent. The faster our economy grows above trend line growth, the faster unemployment comes down.

Trend line growth for the US economy is somewhere around 2.5%. Unemployment barely moves when our economy grows at that rate.

As with all economics rules of thumb, Okun’s Law isn’t perfect, but it helps explain why most economists think unemployment will still be somewhere around 9% a year from now.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:35 pm

I agree, Poor Boy.

Jm

October 27th, 2011
4:35 pm

I’m glad we have 2.5% growth

But if we r going to bring politics into this, Obama has a lot more work to do (if that’s the metric)

Jay, what is obama’s growth rate thus far?

Jm

October 27th, 2011
4:38 pm

Okuns law is silly
Productivity is the driver
Employment will improve as productivity (i believe) has already started flattening

But yes, more growth is better and helps

ByteMe

October 27th, 2011
4:38 pm

Adam, take pity on poor Zedd. He posted four times on another AJC blog that ACORN was helping OWS. Or so says FOX. Ignoring, of course, that ACORN went out of business months ago.

Kamchak

October 27th, 2011
4:40 pm

Productivity Demand is the driver

RB from Gwinnett

October 27th, 2011
4:40 pm

“Why a 2.5 percent growth rate might be better than you think”

Why?? Because there is a Democrat in the white house and you must do everything possible to make him look better than the pathetic failure he’s been…

Paul

October 27th, 2011
4:40 pm

Scout

Thought you’d appreciate this:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/mar/04/you-can-leave-the-military-but-it-never-really/

You too, AmVet.

Something Scout and AmVet might agree on. Is this a great blog, or what?

Jm

October 27th, 2011
4:40 pm

Democrats are destroying the deficit super committee

Shame on them

getalife

October 27th, 2011
4:41 pm

Great.

Now the cons pretend to be economists.

These are the same people that think cain is a serious candidate.

ByteMe

October 27th, 2011
4:41 pm

The thing about 2.5% is that although it seems low, it’s a sustainable level of growth for an economy. 4%, although wonderful in theory, can’t be sustained without it becoming excessively inflationary (inflationary enough for the Fed to clamp down on it).

Logical Dude

October 27th, 2011
4:41 pm

Paul: I’ve found it simple to use the Rule of Thumb: “Happens on your watch, you get the credit, or the hit.”
(sorry for the delayed response)

No matter if it’s their fault or not? Not a good rule of thumb to me. (although it does take the easy way out)
:)

pogo

October 27th, 2011
4:41 pm

Jay is once against banging away at his propagandist keyboard. He is telling people that what they see with their own eyes and the financial pressures they are feeling everyday are not as bad as they think. His comparison to Bush is a sad attempt at diverting from the truth of the failure of Obama. Bush was nothing more than a economic socialist himself but during his time the misery index was at least contained a little. A more realistic comparison would be to compare Obama’s record to say, Jimmy Carter’s, as their presidencies are pretty much a mirror image of each other.

Digressing, Obama’s Student Loan deal is the slickest proposed Ponzi I have seen in a while. It appears to somehow absolve students from having to pay back all of the money they have borrowed (for pretty much worthless degrees) but what it really does is it saddles them later on (if they every find a job) with having to pay higher and higher taxes for the deficit it will create. And the Universities will just keep upping their tuition because they know that they will have access to even more guaranteed government money. Of course todays youth (and many here) are probably dumb enough to fall for it because all that matters to them is the “now”.

St Simons - we're on Island time

October 27th, 2011
4:41 pm

Its time to OTB – Occupy the Beach, and then Occupy the World’s Largest Cocktail Party. Surely we can all agree on that. Can I play music a day early? Gooooo Dawgs sic em woof..er..(mildly bark this year)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf6vCjtaV1k&ob=av2e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdgxC4f0SK4

Zedd

October 27th, 2011
4:42 pm

Yeah Byte Me, like I said over there……if you’d actually read the column and opted for a civil discussion instead of resorting to insults, you’d have seen that they are former ACORN employees working under a different name out the same offices. ‘Cause that makes it all better right?

Jm

October 27th, 2011
4:42 pm

More downgrades will happen if the supercommiytee fails making us even more of a second rate nation

Shame on democrats

JohnnyReb

October 27th, 2011
4:44 pm

Jay, perhaps I misunderstood your comments. I took the oarsman in a whitewater raft to mean while the oarsman can make a difference there are forces greater than he can control. I expect you will agree.

My point is, yes, there are forces greater than what Obama can control. However, his recovery policies have failed while driving us much deeper in debt. His total agenda was rejected last November.

You and fellow Democratic loyalists hold on to hope that has not and will not materialize while Obama divides the Nation in his attempts to gain reelection.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:44 pm

Obama’s growth rate?

If you don’t stick him with the first quarter of 2009, which was underway when he took office, his average quarterly growth rate is 1.95 percent.

Jay

October 27th, 2011
4:45 pm

jm, do you think the GOP should agree to tax hikes in the supercommittee?

Proud to be me!

October 27th, 2011
4:46 pm

Jay needs to go the way of Cynthia Tucker . . . out the AJC door!

getalife

October 27th, 2011
4:46 pm

con comments are like watching fox news.

I read a couple of lines then change the channel.

That Secret Service agent was right.

JohnnyReb

October 27th, 2011
4:46 pm

Kammie, thanks for the opportunity to give you one of those smart a$$ replies you love. We are talking about Obama, not Bush, sport.

Jm

October 27th, 2011
4:46 pm

Byteme

Economy can grow at 4% and not be inflationary, though most consider it about the max

Paul

October 27th, 2011
4:46 pm

Logical Dude

Meant it more as a comment on political reality.

Unless the other side wants to ignore it to make political points, that is -