And our Obama "recovery" continues ..........

WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014, the latest stumble for a recovery that has struggled to find its footing since the recession ended almost five years ago.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, contracted at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.0% in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Thursday. It was the first time economic output contracted since the first quarter of 2011, when it declined at a 1.3% pace.
Government economists had previously estimated GDP slowed to a 0.1% growth rate in the first quarter as harsh winter weather disrupted work sites, curtailed foot traffic at retail stores and snarled transportation networks across much of the U.S. The newly revised estimate incorporates additional economic data released in recent weeks. Higher-than-expected imports and slower-than-expected inventory growth dragged the economy into negative territory.
Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had predicted Thursday's report would revise GDP growth down to a 0.6% decline.
U.S.-based corporations, meanwhile, posted slightly lower profits during the first quarter. The Commerce Department said corporate profits after tax, without inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, totaled a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1.880 trillion for the quarter. That is down from profits of $1.905 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2013.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gdp-contracted-at-1-pace-in-first-quarter-1401366873

 

Yes, Obama is now being blamed for the weather by the repukes....

....in the first quarter as harsh winter weather disrupted work sites, curtailed foot traffic at retail stores and snarled transportation networks across much of the U.S

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/and-our-obama-recovery-continues.51056/#ixzz337JTriFf​

 

Not arguing with those stats, but that takes in a very narrow spectrum. The company I work for has over 100,000 commercial customers in 48 states and our business has shown a 13% increase in the last three months alone. It's been so aggressive that we're running low on manpower and equipment to meet demand. So, just because the GDP and Wall Street numbers show a slight decline, it does not mean that decline is relevant to business as a whole.

 

By definition, it is the measure of business as a whole.

As for you specific company, how much of that increase is due to the oil boom in ND?

 

Hey, it's cloudy out today....Curse you Obama!!!!

 

And it continues. New Obama rules are expected to cost 250,000 jobs per year for the next 20 years. And that is Obama's fix for the economy?

BTW, expect to pay more for ink, paper, cars, aluminum, just to name a very few all due to Obama's proposed taxation.

 

U.S. Economy Shrinks For First Time In 3 Years ... Oh nooooo! The world is coming to an end because we had a harsh winter.

 

U.S. Regulatory Costs Are World's No. 10 Economy

290 Comments
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 04/29/2014 08:02 AM ET

The Obama administration has had 42% more "economically significant" rules in the pipeline, on average, each year than the Bush administration.... View Enlarged Image​

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world.
That's according to the latest annual report on the regulatory state issued by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, titled "Ten Thousand Commandments."
Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the "regulation tax" imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.
By comparison, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India's is $1.84 trillion.
The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this "tax" never shows up anywhere in the federal budget — or any other official report — even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.
As a result, "policymakers find it easier to impose regulatory costs relative to undertaking more government spending," Crews notes, "because of the lack of disclosure and accountability for regulatory costs."
Among the findings in the report:
On a per-household basis, federal regulatory costs average $14,974, which is more than the typical household spends on just about anything else.
When regulatory costs are combined with federal spending, Washington's share of the economy rises to an eye-popping 31%.
There are currently more than 3,000 rules in various stages of implementation at 63 federal agencies; 191 of the rules are "economically significant," which means that they will impose more than $100 million in annual compliance costs.
Nearly 670 of these rules will affect small businesses.
Last year, regulators issued 3,659 rules. That's equal to one new rule every 2 1/2 hours of every day, or nearly two federal rules issued every business hour.
In 2013, there were 51 regulatory rules written for each law passed, which the CEI says is a measure of how much power Congress has delegated to unelected regulators. This "Unconstitutionality Index" — as the CEI calls it — averaged 34 under Obama, nearly twice the average rate during the George W. Bush years.
The Obama administration has had 42% more "economically significant" rules in the pipeline, on average, each year than the Bush administration.
At the same time, Obama's regulators have let state and local governments increasingly off the hook, putting fewer regulations affecting them in the pipeline than during the Bush or Clinton years.
The CEI report includes various recommendations for making regulatory costs more transparent and readily available to the public.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/042914-698787-regulatory-economy-booms-under-president-obama.htm#ixzz337xC5qWc
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

I'm surprised you're not blaming it on Bush. You blame everything else on him.

 

I only blame Bush for the things he actually did. You only excuse Bush for everything he actually did.

Please let me know how Obama now controls the weather.

 

Obviously, he does not control the weather. Also obviously, we have bad weather every winter or are you going to say winter weather does not " disrupted work sites, curtailed foot traffic at retail stores and snarled transportation networks across much of the U.S" every winter?

 

Yes, but lets not confuse it with GNP. GDP is only the market value of goods. So if a surplus prompts say milk producers to lower the price of milk, the GDP lowers. A lowered GDP is not an indicator of a poor economy...most of the time. Inflation increases GDP, therefore I would think the conservatives here would be happy.

 

Is that like 2 locomotives can pull a load only using half the fuel? Come back to general economic rather than you dreams.

 

Thats how it works. Look it up. And yes, the more locomotives, the less fuel spent. Basic principal really.

 

Right! So every railroad ought to use 100 engines per haul and then they could pull each ton 40,000 miles per gallon, right?

And, BTW, when was the last time you heard of deflation being of any concern for ANY area of the economy being hauled by trains?

 

You're right, RLM...I must know nothing about the career I've had the past 21 years.

 

So is your knowledge of locomotive's TPG as accurate as you definition if GDP and GNP?

 

Far more so. But your attempts at understanding are cute and endearing nonetheless.

 

So which one (GDP or GNP) include investments? Which includes government spending?

 

GDP is income, not expenditures. GNP is also based on income, but personal, which takes the stock market into account. GDP does not take stock earnings into account. Value is not income. Cash the value in and the taxes corresponding with that transaction then become income, but it is GNP, not GDP.