|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: So the Obama administration doesn't like|
So the Obama administration doesn't like
Posted - 7/31/2013 11:51:57 AM | show profile | flag this post
the dismal economic statistics of its tenure, ergo it had the Commerce Dept go back to 1929 to change the way it calculates Gross Domestic Product. The biggest change was for the the last five years...the entire period of the Obama presidency.
The changes "added" (read: invented) $559.8 billion WITH $526 BILLION OF THAT DUE TO DEFINITION CHANGES.
And notice that a cursory glance at the last set of numbers...the last five years...would mislead one to believe it was a period of high growth when we all know it's been dismal.
Posted - 7/31/2013 2:11:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
It's a TRAP! Another Obama Whatever!
This is how stench like this spreads. Drudge posts "Commerce Dept revises economy numbers -- BACK TO 1929..." OMG, that's like throwing chum into a piranha tank. Wingnuts like cruise jump at it.
(cruise) "the Obama administration doesn't like...statistics of its tenure, ergo it had the Commerce Dept go back to 1929 to change the way it calculates Gross Domestic Product." Well that's just a lie. Obama has nothing to do with it. The BEA explains quite clearly:
"Once every 5 years, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis produces a “comprehensive” revision to its gross domestic product (GDP) statistics, incorporating changes to how the U.S. economy is measured as well as more complete source data all the way back to 1929. This year is one of those years."
This started during the Nixon Admin. Over the years they've had to add things like the internet surge and shopping (Surely, that was Obama planning ahead). This year the "GDP will now include spending on research and development and some forms of entertainment, transfer fees related to home sales and a new treatment of pensions" (Personally, I had NO IDEA these people weren't counting R&D!, never mind things like Amazon)
Another massive smackdown and embrassment for cruise. It's not an Obama plot (They've been doing revisions for decades to mirror reality), It sounds like the revisions are overdue. IF cruise or anyone went thru that marketwatch slideshow or bothered to check somewhere else, you'd find out what's going on.
Posted - 7/31/2013 2:57:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
When are you going to realize
that ALL cabinet departments are subject to Obama's influence and meddling?
This one is under the Secretary of Commerce...a cabinet post. And it "just happens" to "adjust" the numbers affecting the GDP...which has been dismal...for virtually ALL of Obama's presidency. Exactly how gullible are you???
Yes, the numbers get adjusted every few years but NEVER BEFORE has a change of this magnitude been implemented. And why, you might ask? Because Obama keeps stepping on his own crank and keeps looking for something that will help wash away all the resultant negativity. And after some COLOSSAL screwups (IRS, Benghazi, BATFE, DOJ, FBI, NSA, etc.) he'll accept even minor victories.
Posted - 7/31/2013 3:14:34 PM | show profile | flag this post
And when are you going to realize
You're a tool. A laughingstock. A foolish hate filled conspiracy nut.
The BEA changes its parameters every five years--regardless of who's president. Then the new economics (like adding dvd sales or syndication/re-run profits) are measured as well as more complete source data all the way back to 1929. That's the way it's done. But you had Obama telling "the Commerce Dept go back to 1929 to change the way..." that's paranoid freak territory.
"NEVER BEFORE has a change of this magnitude been implemented" Where did you find that?
"In its most significant reclassification since 1999, GDP will now include spending on research and development and some forms of entertainment, transfer fees related to home sales and a new treatment of pensions. While the July 31 update will boost the world’s largest economy by around $400 billion, equivalent to adding another Virginia or New Jersey, it probably won’t alter the recent trend in growth.
“If you measure something in pounds or in kilos, you haven’t changed the weight,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse AG in New York. “It’s the same economy, we’re just applying a different accounting convention to measure it.”
In other words--this doesn't change much at all. It better reflects reality--and obviously if a Repub takes over the WH in two years those standards will be the same--unless they're changed again three years later. For that matter, if Romney had won, the standards would have been changed.
But but but...All this logic escapes you. It's another Kenyan plot.
Posted - 7/31/2013 3:42:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
for cruiztwit, tyou have to remember..
to him, 2+2=6 and 7/8..
Posted - 7/31/2013 4:20:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
Reserve your arrogant condescension for your mirror
You can only lecture me IF you know what you're talking about...and you don't.
Posted - 7/31/2013 4:48:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
The period from 2009 to the present...the whole of
Obama's presidency...shows an average GDP growth of just over 1.1 percent. This includes four of the 19 periods that were negative...two of which were VERY negative. And in only five of the 19 periods did GDP growth exceed 3 percent, which is generally thought to be rather anemic.
These figures IN NO WAY support the false picture Obama is trying to paint with his changes to the GDP calculation method.
Posted - 8/1/2013 11:14:36 AM | show profile | flag this post
math is a conspiracy!
Posted - 8/1/2013 11:50:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
Being lousy at Economics...
I like to look at this stuff in terms even I can understand...
US Real GDP by year:
Mar 31, 2013 13.75 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 13.67 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 13.44 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 13.18 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 12.87 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 12.88 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 13.33 trillion
Dec 31, 2006 13.04 trillion
Dec 31, 2005 12.74 trillion
Dec 31, 2004 12.39 trillion
Dec 31, 2003 12.04 trillion
Dec 31, 2002 11.59 trillion
Dec 31, 2001 11.37 trillion
So Bush was doing pretty good: 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, and then the Bush Recession hit. We're back to 12's again, and when Obama comes in, it steadily goes back to 13, and rising, and we've been there ever since. That's pretty much it.
I don't see MASSIVE drops or gains. And I certainly don't see yet another 'Obama Conspiracy' to cook the numbers. And remember--that's how this thread started: Obama personally ordered Commerce to change its methadology. Bull. I ALREADY proved that was a lie, yet cruise refuses to acknowledge it and keeps piling on ("paint with his changes to the GDP calculation method")
Posted - 8/1/2013 12:20:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
Apples and oranges pal
The GDP growth percentage was just as I described it...anemic. I calculated it from figures supplied by the government.
The ONLY way you even have a prayer of being "right" is to redefine the topic...just as Obama is redefining the calculation method.
Posted - 8/1/2013 12:34:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
Facts and Facts PAL
I got my year by year from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
So when you say "I calculated it from figures supplied by the government." You're saying we both got our numbers from the same source...but WTF does "I calculated it from..." mean? You can somehow magically add numbers to get a different result?
How is comparing months instead of entire years "Apples and oranges pal"??
And besides that, why don't you have the balls to admit you lied about Obama ordering the Commerce Dept to change the way it calculates Gross Domestic Product?? Especially "ergo it had the Commerce Dept go back to 1929 to change the way"...since that's the way they've done it since Nixon.
So you say "The ONLY way you even have a prayer of being "right" is to redefine the topic..." THE TOPIC (So the Obama administration doesn't like) WAS A LIE...I re-defined it with the truth. That must really suck for you.
Posted - 8/1/2013 4:09:53 PM | show profile | flag this post
you calculated it from numbers provided by the government?
But you're complaining about the numbers provided by the government?
Math IS a conspiracy! You've uncovered it, cruzo!
Posted - 8/1/2013 11:43:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
I know where my numbers came from
I have no friggin' idea where you got yours.
The notable thing is they CLEARLY don't match.
Posted - 8/2/2013 8:41:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
because the standard, five year adjustment doesn't back up your world view -- so you're using outdated numbers.
But you're wrong, cruzo.
Blame it on the global math conspiracy!