Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US economy grows at 1.7 pct. pace in 2nd quarter
AP ^ | July 21st 2013 | CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER

Posted on 07/31/2013 5:57:57 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy grew from April through June at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.7 percent, as businesses spent more and the federal government cut less.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamanomics
I got two words...

"Bull" and "S**T"

1 posted on 07/31/2013 5:57:57 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

AP puts lipstick on a pig.


2 posted on 07/31/2013 6:00:00 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
BTW they also report that last quarters' 1.8% is revised...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

DOWN... to 1.1%

Minitrue is working overtime!

3 posted on 07/31/2013 6:00:18 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
But how else are they going to report an improvement in GDP for this quarter?
4 posted on 07/31/2013 6:02:25 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

1.7% annual “bu!!$hit”

The inflation rate is somewhere around 10-15%!

Corrupt insidious tyranny! Wake up froggie, you’re boiling!


5 posted on 07/31/2013 6:02:26 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

How much again are they understating inflation in those statistics?

And how much growth is required just to keep pace with our growing population?


6 posted on 07/31/2013 6:12:58 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

how unexpected...


7 posted on 07/31/2013 6:13:38 AM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

So 1Q was revised from 1.8 to 1.1.

And we are supposed to have any confidence in the 2Q number?

Or is this like the weekly unemployment - the revised is always worse than initial and then that makes new announcement that much ‘better’ even though is purely an apples and oranges headline?

So 1.7 is greatly improved and has momentum? Is that the headline? Um, no. It should not be it. It should be 1.7 as compared to 1.8 (both initial reports). The ‘revised’ will likely be around 1.0 with the track record. Of course then a 1.5 in 3Q will still read as a positive.

The manipulation of headlines is getting so, so tiresome.


8 posted on 07/31/2013 6:19:15 AM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

The entire GDP model/calculation was revised back to 1929. The comparison between the 1.8% and 1.1% is apples and oranges.


9 posted on 07/31/2013 6:21:38 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6; Mad Dawgg
The elephant in the room here is that 1.1 or 1.7 or 1.8 percent used to be enough to threaten a President's re-election chances, or at least his political capital if he wasn't up for re-election. The desired growth rate was over 3%.

Now ANY growth is hailed as proof that the Messiah's economic prowess is greater than any President in history, and that the "recovery" is in full swing.

10 posted on 07/31/2013 6:24:11 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Buck Off, Bronco Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

From the BEA release:

Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

The estimates released today reflect the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 “advance” estimate. More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.


11 posted on 07/31/2013 6:25:07 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Qtr 1 GDP Growth:

2.4% - Initial estimate
1.8% - First Revision
1.1% - Second Revision

Qtr 2 GDP Growth:

1.7% - Initial Estimate

The initial estimates are just phony numbers made up to generate headlines. 1.7% is bad in any way you look at it, and far below the 3% growth needed to drive hiring and really reduce unemployment.


12 posted on 07/31/2013 6:25:16 AM PDT by Stevenc131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

They had to revise it down, otherwise this last quarter would be lower than the first quarter and we’d be half way to an official recession.


13 posted on 07/31/2013 6:26:48 AM PDT by Excellence (All your database are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Oh what the hell, they can make up better numbers than this. Why not tell us the economy grew one billion percent? I mean, if you’re going to lie, make it worth while.


14 posted on 07/31/2013 6:32:05 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
The GDP(2) comes in at +1.7% when the “experts” were expecting +1.0%. That's supposed to look good. HOWEVER, GDP(1) was revised from +1.8% down to +1.1%. If my math works I would say the “experts” were actually “right on” since their estimate could not anticipate or include the revision. There are “lies”, “damn lies”, and government statistics.
15 posted on 07/31/2013 6:35:03 AM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Impeachment File on Benghazi Coward “B. Hussein Obama,” formerly known as Barry Soetoro, currently a Legal Citizen of the Sovereign Nation of Indonesia.


16 posted on 07/31/2013 6:41:33 AM PDT by Graewoulf (Traitor John Roberts' Commune-Style Obama'care' violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Summer of Recovery V5.0 (tm)

With growth like this, we’ll be back to full employment in 2027!


17 posted on 07/31/2013 6:46:02 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The Tipline for Zimmerman's Inquisition is: Sanford.florida@usdoj.gov ... Use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
The entire GDP model/calculation was revised back to 1929. The comparison between the 1.8% and 1.1% is apples and oranges.

******

Absolutely right! The economic ledgerdemain of this administration knows no bounds. They will continue to distort and "revise" the basis for any problematic numbers that show the economy in a bad light.

Their greatest fear is a slide back into recesssion before the next election. They will never let that happen and will cook the numbers anyway they can to avoid the perception that things are going downhill.

This deceitful manipulation has become pervasive and systemic. But the eocnomy is so weak that even with this blatent maniplation, the numbers are STILL BAD!

18 posted on 07/31/2013 6:55:06 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

HOWEVER, GDP(1) was revised from +1.8% down to +1.1%.
*******
That’s a downward revision of nearly 40%. If a similar revision occurs with Q2 it will be revised down to just 1% growth — even after redefining how the GDP is calculated (i.e., using a more generous method).


19 posted on 07/31/2013 7:01:00 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stevenc131

A clear and excellent post. Great summary.

Regards.


20 posted on 07/31/2013 7:02:06 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Excellence

EXACTLY! See my similar post #18.

Regards.


21 posted on 07/31/2013 7:03:35 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
1.7%? That sucks but it will suck even more when they sneakily revise it downward to the true number.
22 posted on 07/31/2013 7:05:59 AM PDT by JPG (Obama Does Egypt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excellence
they had to revise it down...

That's an interesting mathematical point. Are they calculating the Q2 improvement from the "revised down" number from the previous quarter? If that's the case, it would be more mathematically accurate to not revise up or down, but just compare the new number with the one that was given for the previous quarter.

We're now in wonderland, where the economy always goes up because it's lowered to something it can go up from.

23 posted on 07/31/2013 7:06:51 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grania

Bingo.

And right now the Fed needs good headlines to raise rates.


24 posted on 07/31/2013 7:17:12 AM PDT by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: grania

We’re now in wonderland, where the economy always goes up because it’s lowered to something it can go up from.
*********
That’s true, except in the case of the weekly unemployment reporting where the previous week’s number is always revised up, so that the current week’s number will tend to look like a drop.

Regardless of how they do it, this economic ledgerdemain reduces the impact of political bad news. Right now, Yahoo Finance is touting “Better US Economic Growth” as one of their headlines. This is the type of “wonderland” headline they wanted from their friends in the media.


25 posted on 07/31/2013 7:19:26 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

there are large scale revisions done all the time so it’s not just this administration. Here is a list of them back to 1997:

http://www.bea.gov/national/an1.htm


26 posted on 07/31/2013 7:38:34 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

Thank you, that’s good objective feedback and I respect that. Facts and accuracy are always good to get into the conversation.

Having said that, this administration has cleary been bending and distorting facts for political ends. It’s not just economics; there are numerous scandals and constant dissembling that have characterized this administration from day one. Just yesterday Art Laffer was actually laughing out loud at some of the new and obviously absurd ways of calculating the GDP that were introduced. So while other administrations have allowed revisions to economic calculations, I doubt that they were so conveniently blatent as the ones Obama has been fostering.

Regards.


27 posted on 07/31/2013 11:08:38 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Take away quantitative easing, and what does it look like?


28 posted on 07/31/2013 4:43:02 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
"Take away quantitative easing, and what does it look like?"

I'll go with "the 1930s"...

29 posted on 08/01/2013 2:16:39 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson