Lucky...

Wait for the second or third "revision" and then get back to us dont change the fact that 09 had the biggest loss in the since 42 or 3 Your a hoot Biggest loss in the what? As usual, your dribble makes no sense. As for 2nd or 3rd revision, as I said, so what if it's 4.8, 4.0, or???, it's awesome for people who want the US to win, AKA: not you. Also, what if it's not adusted at all? What if it is adjusted higher? 5.7 is phenominal even if it is adjusted 20% lower. I'm sorry that Obama and the US is not failing. you just love being manipulated by the President don't you I'm reading data, not Obama, so once again your posts are unintelligible.

And then the prediction is it will get MUCH worse in 2011. This is very dependent however on whether congress decides to increase or decrease punishment on large and small business AND whether the current level of fed spending is maintained or increased You guys have been wrong all year, esp Stanley with his market predictions, now that the GDP is smoking hot and unemp stabilized, you guys are focusing in 2011. Great for laughs. I guess if your current predictions or past predictions of today tank, you have to make new predictions for future years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hatzius Jan Hatzius (born 1968) is a German economist. He currently is Goldman Sachs′ chief US economist and is responsible for setting the firm's US economic and interest rate outlook. Notable for his bearish forecasts, he was listed atop of 52 Wall Street economists in The Wall Street Journal′s economic-forecast rankings So what you're saying is Hatzius is being Hatzius; means nothing as a predictor.

Did consumer spending slow? The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in six years in the last three months of 2009, expanding at a 5.7% yearly rate over the previous quarter, as businesses drew less from their stockrooms and stepped up purchases of equipment and software. Exports surged and consumers spent more.

Love your reluctance to state what it will be or perhaps make a wager to stay away from here if you're wrong. Mike refused to also - good for him, bad for us, he was wrong and didn't bet (that's the bad for us part). BTW, sorry America isn't in ruins to prove you right, I actually want America to win unlike you.

Sure, the data is shaky at best, but looking at what it could be based upon previous horrible economic times, I'm happy with some early + news. With the poor underlying data is news about the 700k/month jobs that were being lost, now cut to a small fraction of that. 2 of the 3 main indicators are awesome, the last, unemp is starting to shade our way. - I'm optimistic, Obama is optimistoc; you're pesimistic hoping for failure and Obama is supposedly anti-American? - This crap economy is far ahead of schedule and you know it. - How is Obama to blame for it? Unemp was 8% as he inherited it and in freefall, the GDP was 4 of the last 5 Q's negative, the 1st Q of 09 hugely negative, and teh market was in freefall. That is probably one of the dumbest assertions I've read here. And they weren't in freefall - all-time low - as Obama inherited the whitehouse? http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/real_estate/new_home_sales/index.htm?postversion=2009022611 Census Bureau says sales of newly built homes fell 10% in January to the lowest level since reporting began in 1963. You should check your facts and start making some sense. More nonsense from the purveyor of misinformation: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000 Riiiiight. It's around 17%, has been for quite a while. http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009 And when the unemployment rate is 7%, the real unemp rate is 12-13%. The 10% BLS to 17% real number is proportional to other eras of whatever the unemp rate is. Just as when you bit Hoover ran it to 25%, the real numbers were likely 40-50%. So again, the BLS unemp rate is 10.0%; I'm sorry for you it's not higher so you could further blame Obama for the mess he inherited. They're not my numbers, they're the BLS' numbers; perhaps you've heard of them. Furthermore, even if the 4th Q numbers are adjusted, 3 great Q's since Obama's entry = his policies rock, yours suck. Your point? Not taking stimulus money means you'll do better? Perhaps they were in a better position as the Great Repiblican Recession started. I knew you couldn't leave w/o a racist remark. BTW, were well into the fire as Obama took office, in case you have a hard time extrapolating data, the numbers look great. Sorry guys like you who want America to fail are now depressed and having to fabricate data; I use BLS, BEA, gov data; stay away from the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and other Nazi sources - it rots ur brain.

and Keith Olbermann went ape shit. Not really those liberals are used to having low ratings! Can you say air america? Hate and lies dont sell as good!

Like your link to the huff post? Diff is, you by that Nazis BS, I use the satire as a general reference as to how RWers are, this thread illustrates that. You falling all over Beck would be like me falling all over Al Franken, which I don't and you do. See, I fall all over teh issues, RWers fall all over the pundits.

So you're his #1 cheerleader; we're convinced. So show me his or your proof of whatever. Of course you won't, you just gleefully hop behind the pundits with their BS. Like your other hereos, the Cato Institute, another POS rag like the Heritage Foundation, they say FDR tripled taxes when it was in reality Hoover with the Revenue Act of 1932. So just keep paying homage to the repositories of misinformation WHILE NEVER ACTUALLY DISCUSSING ISSUES OR EVIDENCE.

A balance is key, the dispute is where to place that balance. furthermore, some people want the balance extreme in certain areas and lax in others, so you are just as guilty as others, just in different areas, yet proclaim innocnse.

Now you're accusing him of grading bias? WOW - you truely have stooped to the depths. So he can twist and screw with people here but nobody else is supposed to answer him YOU are funny oh (self proclaimed) arbiter of Speakers Corner! Dont like the heat? Dont start the fire Wait, are you unable to stick with one issue? You wrote: Now, go fail someone who political leanings piss you off You were referring to his students, now you're referring to people here. You accused a professor, I assume a tenured professor or grading bias, that's defamation.

From a person who worked that program, me, it was/is a piece of shit. FR used it to try to bring the economy around, but as with all gov welfare, most ends up in the pockets of teh rich, the poor wait for a trickle down. I've said that forever.

Sure they do - that's why I support the military spending that's given us things like the drones that let us perform recon without risking our troops. Obviously, you have a different opinion. Why do we need to match the world in defense spending. No mike, bakc to that question - quit wandering; WHY DO WE NEED TO MATCH THE WORLD IN DEFENSE SPENDING? Other countries spend virtually nothing and have no issues.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's that spending you so decry that's given our troops the weapons, comms and other gear that makes them so effective - I suppose you'd rather have them using Vietnam-era gear, instead. Assuming the war is worth fighting, which I don't, but I do support the troops just as my party does, which is why Obama said vet benefits are off limits. Now, the war amounted to 15% of teh 5T debt increase, so explain the other 85% considering the economy was descent when your idiot inherited it, the debt increase was virtually horizontal and there was a 236B surplus. I won't expect a direct answer, perhaps a strawman.

Yea, mega-rich people earn their 100M salaries. Nazizona is not a charity state, so you once again spoke (wrote) with no information. But not the corporate giveaway programs. Not the massive military waste, right? It has to grow at a rate commensurate with population growth and inflation to break even. Of course your party doesn't get that, it grows at several times that rate, as with Reagan and GWB, right? Or do you have a BS rationalization for that too? Your bigger government application, as per the people you elect, make me sick. See, you claim I want to grow gov while you elect people who do just that under the guise of smaller gov. You're a walkign contradiction who runs when called on it. If I have no clue, then explaoin: - You claim a smaller gov - Vote for people who promise a smaller gov - Those representatives triple debt figures, turn surpluses to deficits. - Yet you clammer I'm wrong, don't know what I'm talking about and pretend you want a smaller government when in fact, by your electoral actions, you must want the bigger government as the guys you elect constantly do just that. I won't expect a comprehensive reply.

There is a simple solution, CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can list all kind of things to cut. Don't spend more than you take it. PERIOD! OK, please give us a list, along with the $$ amount that each will save, Don't wait up late.

RWers are deaf to this concept, the very concept they brag about but do the opposite of. Clinton followed this process and repaired the economy after fascist Ronnie. Nothing compared with fascist Ronnie. He cut taxes from the top brkt of 70% to 28% over 6 years in 3 hacks. GWB cut them from 40% to 35%, so GWB's issues were more of massive irresponsible spending more than tax cutting. And people will cite the war, but it only accounted for 15% of the 5T in debt increase incurred under him and his corrupt regime. Both were a joke, but not that economically devastating as they comprised only 15% of his dirty work. Of course.

There is a simple solution, CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can list all kind of things to cut. Don't spend more than you take it. PERIOD! But of course not military spending, 8 times that of #2 and virtually matching the rest of the world, not counting Iraq/AFG spending, is fully acceptable, right?

Now you're accusing him of grading bias? WOW - you truely have stooped to the depths.

And what people need to realize is that this kind of attitude is no different than that of the HC debate. Simply a mechanism to try and push the life style choices of some on others under the guise of saving the planet of "giving" everyone health care Have you suddenly become a Socialist? "Free" parking is no different from "Free" healthcare or "Free" education. It's a subsidy to motorists, and if it's provided by the city or county, it's paid for by taxpayers. Your post ignores the context of the OP. But I am not surprised by your "over looking" that tiny piece of info So you ARE a Socialist when it suits you. OK, nice to know that. Just like RWers who are collecting soc security and Medicare/Medicaid while they disavow socialism; country is full of that brilliance.

My state has sold off government buildings including prisons to pay the bills, what do you want to happen? I love all your criticisms yet no solutions rendered; you know what that's worth.

There is a lot of things mentioned, and I assume you do not object to all of them (like having veterans programs exempted from the cuts). What exactly you are objecting to? The spending total Right, if McHoover were elected we could enjoy the Great Depression again. Tx cuts, my friends.....

It's not what?

Wait for the second or third "revision" and then get back to us dont change the fact that 09 had the biggest loss in the since 42 or 3 Your a hoot Biggest loss in the what? As usual, your dribble makes no sense. As for 2nd or 3rd revision, as I said, so what if it's 4.8, 4.0, or???, it's awesome for people who want the US to win, AKA: not you. Also, what if it's not adusted at all? What if it is adjusted higher? 5.7 is phenominal even if it is adjusted 20% lower. I'm sorry that Obama and the US is not failing.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm Well you're right, it's 5.7%! Of course that's still an estimate, but even if it falls to 4.8, 4.0, that's great news, right? Oh wait, you guys want Obama and the US to fail; my bad .