GDP at 4% growth last quarter
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
Expected a bigger quarter after contraction in first quarter, but 4% is impressive!
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
I think this stuff is all reported year-over-year, meaning Q1 2014 has little bearing on Q2 2014.
That said, you can look back 12 months and there should be a (muted) inverse correlation. If Q1 2013 was particularly good, then Q1 2014 might tend to be bad. Sure enough, you can find that in the numbers.
That said, you can look back 12 months and there should be a (muted) inverse correlation. If Q1 2013 was particularly good, then Q1 2014 might tend to be bad. Sure enough, you can find that in the numbers.
Thanks obstructionists in the HOR! Without them blocking everything the POS and Senate attempted to pass the past 4 years, these figures would have never been achieved.
Good point
We keep hearing the Democrats complain about how GOP obstructionism is harming the economy. Well, which is it? If they're going to brag about how good the economy is they can't complain that the GOP is blocking measures they claim will help the economy.
We keep hearing the Democrats complain about how GOP obstructionism is harming the economy. Well, which is it? If they're going to brag about how good the economy is they can't complain that the GOP is blocking measures they claim will help the economy.
Re: so then
Considering that the employer mandate still isn't effective, it's tough to make any judgment. I've never claimed the individual lines of the ACA would hurt the economy, but I still believe the employer mandate will affect hiring practices. In fact, I know that it already is in at least two instances locally of which I have personal knowledge. I doubt those are the only two...
Re: lol
This post was edited on 7/31 4:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
Maybe the economy and would've grown faster (and unemployment decreased faster) without the threat of the ACA employer mandate. I won't let you have it both ways, because you can't prove either statement as fact.
This post was edited on 7/31 4:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
Re: what does
You can't have "it" both ways. You can't claim "the economy would be better if the House GOP got out of the way" on one hand, but not allow "the economy and unemployment would be better without the ACA employer mandate looming over our heads" on the other. Both are equally unprovable statements.
You can't have "it" both ways. You can't claim "the economy would be better if the House GOP got out of the way" on one hand, but not allow "the economy and unemployment would be better without the ACA employer mandate looming over our heads" on the other. Both are equally unprovable statements.
Re: I'm pointing out
"The economy would be better if congress would get its act together" is equally unprovable to "the economy would be better without the ACA employer mandate." Personally, I think the economy isn't all that impacted by either one, but I do think the GOP keeping some government spending in line (even if I despise their idiotic tactics) is a good thing and I think the ACA employer mandate is/will affect(ing) hiring practices (thus the economy in a small way).
I'd say the long-term effects of the government shutdown are likely less than changing the hiring calculus for some number of companies, but that's just me and I can't prove that statement... yet.
... yet you're doing the exact same thing in this thread yourself!
"The economy would be better if congress would get its act together" is equally unprovable to "the economy would be better without the ACA employer mandate." Personally, I think the economy isn't all that impacted by either one, but I do think the GOP keeping some government spending in line (even if I despise their idiotic tactics) is a good thing and I think the ACA employer mandate is/will affect(ing) hiring practices (thus the economy in a small way).
I'd say the long-term effects of the government shutdown are likely less than changing the hiring calculus for some number of companies, but that's just me and I can't prove that statement... yet.
not remotely "unprovable"
A functioning Congress absolutely would have helped. There are almost an innumerable number of ways that a functioning Congress can tweak and assist in making things better.
You are operating from the "government ruins everything it touches" bias.
A functioning Congress absolutely would have helped. There are almost an innumerable number of ways that a functioning Congress can tweak and assist in making things better.
You are operating from the "government ruins everything it touches" bias.
No, I was operating under the assumption you were bagging on the GOP House. If not, then disregard.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]
Re: not remotely "unprovable"
I am operating from a "Democratically-led" government ruins most everything it touches bias. You do the same in reverse.
