White House Sees Pick Up in Growth Next Year

[Khephra]

White House Sees Pick Up in Growth Next Year
Tue July 15, 2003 01:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it expected the U.S. economy to grow year-over-year by 2.3 percent in 2003 and then surge ahead by 3.7 percent in 2004.

The White House said growth was weaker than expected during the first half of 2003, but projected it would be stronger in the second half of the year and pick up in both 2004 and 2005. The White House expects GDP growth in 2005 of 3.6 percent.

more............

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3094058

[Cha]

1. I don't believe a bloody word the white house says anymore...

they lost me at "I'm a uniter not a divider".

[dArKeR]

28. It doesn't have anything to do with belief. It's fact. They've been saying

'next quarter' for a pick-up since the day The Bush Crime Family couped our White House.

And I think the media should be sued for saying, 'next quarter things will pick' for the last 2.7 years. They say this almost every week. Are Dems. that stupid spineless slugs they don't call the media on this? Why doesn't Dean, Kerry, Shit-Face-Gephardt, Kucinich, Sharpton... run an Ad with a thousand clips of our major mainstream reporters vommitting this bullshot onto our screens?

[classics]

2. Reality check El Presidente

Tons of people out of work and only getting worse: check.
New stock market bubble inflating and getting ready to pop: check.
Real estate bubble poised to explode the first time interest rates rise: check.
Nobody spending money on anything unless they have to: check.
People worried sick about thier sons and daughters never coming home: check.
Every job that pays more than $5/hr being exported to India, China and Russia: check.
Savings and jobs fleeing the country that wont ever return: check.
Crushing debt beyond even Rayguns dreams: check.
The threat of never-ending war with every middle-eastern nation: check.

Economic growth: .. uhh... check back in 50 years mmmkay?

[GainesT1958]

3. I just can't hold back on this one:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:7 :7 :7

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that's FUNNY! :D

But, then, what would we expect from a group of idiots who think that we're ALREADY IN A RECOVERY? :wtf:

B-)

[JoeMemphis]

4. If Dubya stops outsourcing ...

... growth will be even higher.

Why haven't the Dems picked up on this as an issue?

[Michael Daniels]

17. If memory serves, I thought outsourcing began under some Clinton policies

and if that's the case it makes it a hard issue for the Democrats to attack on.

[neuvocat]

26. Find some links and post them please.

Clinton campaigned hard against the exporting of jobs and repeatedly mentioned the poster advertising to businesses that they be sent overseas.

The posters were printed by the U.S. government and although I never saw them, no one denied they existed either.

[Neutrino]

5. Last year, it was "1st Q", then ,well, 2ndQ, then on and on

Now it's next year? We'll probably be mired down in a new war,
and if that is the case--we're fried!

[Beetwasher]

6. That's what they said about this year

The economic recovery is hiding out with the WMD's...

[Remark]

7. If peace remains, I don't doubt this

Rule of business cycles.

However, with deficits as high as they are due to increased military spending, I expect potential growth to be capped by about 1-2%. This high spending on the military is not efficient.

Growth under Clinton was 5%ish. 3.7% is a good 1.3.% lower than that.

[diplomats]

10. And deficits are a drag on the economy

I know the business cycle tends to be beyond the control of presidents, but under Bush the economic sluggishness seems endless. (BTW, plunging tax revenues are to blame as well as defense spending.)

[Remark]

14. I was doing a quick ranking of Presidents :re GDP growth

Here's what I got.

1. Roosevelt
2. Kennedy
3. Johnson
4. Reagan
5. Clinton
6. Ford
7. Nixon
8. Carter
9. Eisenhower
10. Bush 2
11. Truman
12. Bush 1

[TahitiNut]

22. Well, I don't know where you get your numbers ...

... or what numbers you're using, but when I rank the average
GDP percentage growth during each Presidential term, I get
something like this: 

 Roosevelt 3 ......... 15.05%  (the war years, '41-'44)
 Roosevelt 1 .......... 7.83%  (recovery from the crash)
 Johnson .............. 5.08%  (Vietnam ramp-up, '64-'68)
 Truman ............... 4.93% 
 Kennedy/Johnson ...... 4.60%  
 Roosevelt 2 .......... 4.60%
 Clinton 2 ............ 4.15%
 Reagan 2 ............. 3.70%  
 Carter ............... 3.28% <---- the average
 Clinton 1 ............ 3.25%
 Eisenhower 1 ......... 3.25%
 Reagan 1 ............. 3.03%
 Nixon ................ 2.98%
 Eisenhower 2 ......... 2.68%
 Nixon/Ford ........... 2.60%
 BushSr ............... 1.95%
 BushJr ............... 1.35%  (a total fuck-up!)
 Roosevelt/Truman .... -2.18%  (end of WW2)
 Hoover .............. -9.33%  (Republican greed)

I suspect you've been (eagerly?) swallowing reichwing
"fuzzy arithmetic" (they're not ready for
"math").  

[LiberalFighter]

27. Hey there... do you have hard source?

If you do then I would like to post it to our website. I have the perfect place to put it... in our Myths and Truths section.

[TahitiNut]

30. Of course.

The BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) offers National Income and Product Accounts Tables. Select Table S.1. Summary of Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product and Related Measures, then select (A)nnual figures for "All Years" and, at the bottom of the page, download it as a CSV file. From there it's a very simple matter to open it in Excel and run averages for the four-year Presidential terms.

It never ceases to amaze me how folks constantly spew false information and other folks swallow it when it's so easy to get the official numbers and do a quick 'crunch'.

I keep the more commonly cited stats in Excel files in a folder on my desktop. Then, when some garbage recycler comes along and regurgitates some specious reichwing falsehood, I just set forth the 'official' numbers.

Note: Since we're talking about GDP (and not the Federal Budget), it's valid to take the years each president was in office (e.g. 1993-2000 for Clinton) rather than the federal fiscal years (which end each September and are ascribed to the year of that September). Even for the fiscal years, the incoming president usually has far more influence over spending during that fiscal year than the outgoing president since "off budget" and "special" or "emergency" appropriations are typical.

FWIW, it's far more interesting to peruse the percentage increases/decreases in the breakdown of GDP ... and see how much is government spending. Then it's interesting to see the correlation between spending in the civilian and goverment sectors, or between federal and state and local. Funny thing is that many kinds of government expenditures don't just evaporate like bombs -- they percolate throught the economy. The BushJrCabal doesn't really seem to care about that; most of their "fiscal policy" results in dollars that hole up offshore and don't cycle through the rest of the domestic economy.

[Remark]

15. I was doing a quick ranking of Presidents :re GDP growth

Here's what I got.

1. Roosevelt
2. Kennedy
3. Johnson
4. Reagan
5. Clinton
6. Ford
7. Nixon
8. Carter
9. Eisenhower
10. Bush 2
11. Truman
12. Bush 1

[diplomats]

19. Interesting that four of the top five are Dems

Although this doesn't tell the whole story. Truman was a helluva president, and he's 11th.

[TahitiNut]

24. Pssst! His numbers are bullshit! (see above)

:eyes:

[northzax]

8. damn, I forgot to change my calendar

is it 2001, 2002 or 2003? I can't recall if it's next year yet.

[Robbien]

9. It's the carrot on the stick line again

The economy is always going to be better in six months. Never now, always six months from now.

[Yavin4]

11. Remindfs Me of the Sign at My Bar

"Free Beer Tomorrow"

Dubya needs this sign:

"Recovery Six Months From Now"

[oneighty]

13. Sign in my old watering hole.

Free beer yesterday.

180

[trof]

12. "Prosperity is just around the corner."

-Herbert Hoover
And this was at the start of the Great Depression.
It's a favorite repug answer.
It's just never THAT corner.
It's the NEXT one.
Or maybe the one after that.
It's one of those corners.
Pretty soon we'll get to it.
By and by.
Be patient.

[twilight]

21. Prosperity is right around the corner alright ....

:dem:

[Sinistrous]

16. I believe a succinct analysis of this claim would be:

YADDA, YADDA, YADDA

[SeattleDem]

18. at these rates, how long before this year's deficit is paid down?

ummm, sure, forecast growth, but let's put it in perspective:

Bush*, you've "lost" $650 billion this year alone (projected $200 billion surplus under Clinton, now today, it's a $450 billion deficit)

Is a pipe dream of 3.6% growth in 2004 enough to make up this economic quagmire you've brought us to?

[TahitiNut]

25. Exactly.

When we add the pillaging of the Social Security Trust Fund to the deficit, we see an annual deficit equal to 5.6% of the GDP, the Gross Domestic Product of the entire country!

Let's make this clear.

The Federal Government under the Busholinis is overspending/undertaxing so much that a single year's deficit will take ALL of two years of optimistic GDP growth.

The GDP can, on average, be expected to grow by 2.5-3.0% each year in "current dollars." This is typically expected just due to population growth and increased productivity (people working harder and smarter).

The Busholinis are putting the whole country deeper in debt at a rate twice as fast as we can optimistically expect increases in the whole nation's output!

[dolstein]

20. Well, growth is probably unavoidable at this point

After all, with record deficits, record low interest rates, and tax cuts still kicking in, there ought to be enough stimulus to revive even the most lifeless of economies.

But will the modest economic gains justify the long-term costs? I think not.

The Republicans would like to forget the fact that Bill Clinton revived the economy in the early 90's not through supply-side tax cuts, but by returning to fiscal discipline, and was rewarded with the strongest economy in U.S. history. It's up to Democrats to remind voters of this, but lord knows the media won't.

[aquart]

32. Can you say, "deflationary spiral"?

This administration has only ONE economic idea: eliminate taxes on extreme wealth.

It has NOTHING for anything else.

Bush will stand in a raging fire and he won't even have spit.

[Torgo]

23. Too bad the business forecasts don't agree!

I sat through a meeting yesterday where business forecasts (by a huge multinational corporation) were reviewed. The bottom line? No growth at all in 2003, not much of anything during the first half of 2004, and pray for relief by the end of 2004.

The corporate tycoons are getting very tired of Bushenomics!

We're in for a very rough ride, folks!

[young_at_heart]

29. Are they FINALLY blaming Bushonomics?

What has happened to the giant surplus Bush inherited? It would be nice to have honest critical assensment of just where the money has gone!

[aquart]

31. And the basis of this fantasy would be............?

Nobody is willing to invest in the United States as long as the insane people are running it.

[are_we_united_yet]

33. Do they really mean it?

Are they telling the truth?
I'm just not sure .....

Freakin lyin bastards.

[regnaD kciN]

34. So do I...

It will pick up right after the first Tuesday of November, when the Shrubs are uprooted and a real democratically-elected government is chosen!

[farmboxer]

35. Bush Has Said That Every Year!

America is on the way to a depression!