Obama goes outside the experience of the enemy (you): swaps Muslim combatants for US deserter

To piss off the patriots and please his anti-Gitmo critics in one stroke.

And talk about using different tactics and actions and all events of the period to maintain a constant pressure:

FBI tries to shake down Phil Mickelson last Thursday on the golf course, a political spectacle aimed at the non-compliant rich.

Arizona is punished as a dumping ground for busloads of illegal immigrant children because it dared to enforce its border with Mexico.

With GDP negative the EPA moves forward with rules to make electricity more expensive for the already beleaguered masses.

How come Neil Cavuto of FoxBusiness is so misinformed about the average age of US vehicles on the road?

Here:

What’s surprising right now is that while auto sales are predictably sluggish, they could be a heck of a lot worse. Auto analysts tell me that’s because the average car on the road is so old – close to nine years. Many owners have no choice but to replace their vehicles. But they’re clearly taking their time and many are waiting for just the right time, and the right sale.

Wrong Neil.

As of last August the average age was 11.4 years and climbing.

You don't go from 11.4 years to 9 years in less than a year.

If we had done so, we'd be in an economic boom right now instead of GDP in the toilet at -1.0%.

White House wants it both ways: blames bad GDP on harsh winter, credits good GDP on increased utilities consumption

Doesn't utilities consumption go up because of bad winter weather, in which case bad winter weather is good for GDP, not bad?

From WhiteHouse.gov here:

1. Real gross domestic product (GDP) fell 1.0 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of 2014, according to the second estimate from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This drop follows an increase of 3.4 percent annual pace in the second half of 2013. Looking at the various components of GDP, consumer spending grew at a rapid pace, mainly reflecting sharp increases in health care and utilities consumption, while the other elements of consumer spending on net rose only slightly. Consumer spending on food services and accommodations fell for the first time in four years, one of several components that was likely affected by unusually severe winter weather. Exports and inventory investment, two particularly volatile components of GDP, also subtracted from growth. ...

3. The first quarter of 2014 was marked by unusually severe winter weather, including record cold temperatures and snowstorms, which explains part of the difference in GDP growth relative to previous quarters. The left chart shows the quarterly deviation in heating degree days from its average for the same quarter over the previous five years. By this measure, the first quarter of 2014 was the third most unusually cold quarter over the last sixty years, behind only the first quarter of 1978 and the fourth quarter of 1976. In addition, there were four storms in the first quarter that rated on the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). The right chart shows that no quarter going back to 1956 had more than three such storms.

Obama's policies caused the GDP decline, not the winter

From The Wall Street Journal, here:

Gross domestic product decelerated to an annualized 1.2% in the January through March period--the slowest pace since the fourth quarter of 2012--from a downwardly revised 2.7% in the final three months of last year, Statistics Canada said Friday. On a monthly basis, GDP in March slowed to 0.1% as expected, from 0.2% in February.

The consensus call was for first-quarter growth to slow to an annualized 1.8% from the originally estimated 2.9% in the fourth quarter, according to a report from Royal Bank of Canada. ... The central bank had forecast growth of 1.5% in its April monetary policy report. ...

Despite the poor showing, Canada's GDP outpaced the U.S. where latest figures showed output shrank 1% at annual rates in the first quarter, as severe winter weather exacted a major toll on the economy.

Statistics Canada didn't specify the reasons for the slowdown in Canada, but bad weather could have been a factor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, bad winter weather supposedly caused US GDP to go dramatically negative while in Canada the same bad weather didn't cause GDP to go dramatically negative. We supposedly froze to a standstill and died because of it, while Canadians went on their merry way as they usually do, just at a little slower pace.

Let's put it all in perspective.

The Canadian consensus estimate was off by only 33%, but in the US by some 400% (the consensus for the US revision was down to -0.2% from +0.1%). Apparently the cold affects our reasoning ability, too.

In nominal terms, US GDP on an annualized basis was up just $11.7 billion in 1Q2014 to $17.101 trillion compared with 4Q2013 in the second estimate. But in real terms this was deemed a decline of $39.4 billion, hence the negative print.

Canada's much smaller economy, which in current US dollars is about $1.58 trillion in size, produced an increase of 0.29% in the first quarter as announced on Friday, which annualized comes to 1.19%. In terms of constant prices this was an increase of 5.1 billion dollars Canadian in the first quarter, about $4.7 billion US.

So Canada's tiny little economy, nearly ten times smaller than ours, had the temerity to produce about 40% of our nominal GDP in the face of one of the most brutally cold and snowy winters in the last 100 years.

Put that in your winter-caused-the-GDP-to-decline pipe and smoke it, Mr. Obama. The Great White North may be smaller, but it works harder than you and your Dreamer pals ever dreamed.

UPDATE: The proper comparison, because the Canadian figures are in constant dollars, that is, already inflation-adjusted dollars, is between Canada's positive addition of $4.7 billion US to their GDP vs. America's subtraction of $39.4 billion in real terms from their GDP.

So Canada's 10x smaller economy managed to produce net positive GDP in the extreme weather conditions which Americans to a man blame for their net negative GDP.

Frankly, I'M DISGUSTED WITH MY COUNTRY! 

Cold wintry places which had positive GDP, unlike the US under Obama (-1.0%)

Poland     +1.10%
Denmark     .89%
Germany     .80%
England       .80%
CANADA   .70%
Switzerland .50%
Norway       .30%

If George W. Bush had a negative GDP report, you'd never hear the end of it

21 quarters into his presidency Barack Obama produces -1.0% GDP growth to start the year and everyone is falling all over themselves to excuse it if they have to talk about it at all, while most people the day after the announcement aren't talking about it at all. Not even the right wing. It's astonishing. By far the worst GDP performance of any presidency in the post-war, even worse than W's, and no one has one thing to say about it.

My country, on medication.

Obama GDP Failure: 1Q 2014 GDP revised down to -1.0% from +0.1% in second estimate

From the BEA news release here, which fails to make mention of either "winter" or "weather" in the report:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the first quarter according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.6 percent. ...

The downturn in the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected a downturn in exports, a larger decrease in private inventory investment, and downturns in nonresidential fixed investment and in state and local government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in federal government spending.

---------------------------------------

The consensus estimate for the revision had been -0.2% from +0.1%, while worst case scenarios had talked about -0.4%, so this is quite the stunner to go all the way down to -1.0%.

If the American economy has become so fragile that a little bad weather can knock off economic growth while China doesn't let a little thing like that stop it, we're in worse shape than I thought.

What's really showing up here is continuing weak demand after a quarter which included Christmas which could only muster so-so GDP at 2.6%. The weakness was already evident there.

The failure that is Obama continues. His average report of GDP after 21 quarters falls to 1.70%.

Brian Wesbury sounds just like the regime: Dude, that bad GDP report was so two months ago

Brian Wesbury, here:

But regardless of which part of the GDP report accounts for the downward revision, the most important thing to remember is that the report is for the first quarter, the last days of which ended almost two months ago. It's a "rearview mirror" picture of the economy. The winter weather was awful, everyone knows it, and everyone knows that the economy in Q1 was weaker than in recent years.

---------------------------

Like Obama administration narratives which have consistently blamed exogenous events for bad economic news everytime it comes out, which has been every time (it is a global economy after all), facts must never be allowed to interfere with the reality, which in Wesbury's case is his narrative of the ploughhorse economy of continued growth of a plodding, unspectacular but nevertheless good-enough sort that we should all embrace as indicative of the resilience of the great free-market economy of the United States.

Ya man, hallelujah.

Nevermind growth has been declining since 1984 and precipitously since 2004 as America made the shift to wanton free trade and debt-fueled economic growth. TCMDO doubled at its fastest pace in the post-war under Carter/Reagan from 1977 to 1983 and under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, building the foundation of our present discontents in the form of massive debt.

When those bad actors pulled prosperity from the future into their present, our past, they neglected to tell us that we have to pay it back when we get to the future they pulled it from, our future, our now.

Welcome to it. Time to pay up, ploughhorses.

The birth rate has fallen almost 12% under Obama to the lowest level in the post-war

The birth rate per 1000 women both in 2006 and 2007, according to the latest CDC figures, was 14.3, but in 2012 it had fallen to 12. 6 from 12.7 in 2011.

The falloff means that annually you get something like 364,000 fewer new Americans to take our place.

In the late 1950s peak birth rates were in excess of 25.0 per 1000 women.

So if we were doing our job reproducing ourselves today like we were in the 1950s, we'd have something like 7.9 million newborn Americans in 2012 instead of 3.95 million.

Birth rates fell into the 15-range in the 1970s and have stayed there pretty much ever since, until now.

Now you know why GDP is also half what it used to be.

We are literally committing suicide.

FiveThirtyEight Economists Assert But Don't Demonstrate Distributional Characteristics Of Great Recession Spending Pullback

I refer to "Why the Housing Bubble Tanked the Economy And the Tech Bubble Didn’t" by AMIR SUFI and ATIF MIAN, here, where they basically blame the spending pullback of the Great Recession on the poorest, most indebted homeowners:

"The poor cut spending much more for the same dollar decline in wealth. This fact is one of the most robust findings in all of macroeconomics, ... It also makes intuitive sense."

Their forthcoming book may show this, but this article surely doesn't.

They present data which tell us about homeowners' housing as a share of their net worth by quintiles, their mortgages as a share of their home values by quintiles, and about the net worth of richest and poorest homeowners. These are useful distributional observations which, unfortunately, in the case of spending are missing in the presentation! You'd think they would be present in a story which attacks traditional economists like Ben Bernanke for ignoring distributional data sets. Ah, yeah.

Apart from whether showing the distributional characteristics of the spending pullback is even possible, I wonder if it makes any sense that the poorest homeowners could cut their spending enough to account for the sums involved, which is what traditional economists wonder. Weren't they the ones primarily represented in the 5.6 million who lost their homes to foreclosure in the first place?

Using November 2007 real retail and food service sales as the baseline ($179.37 billion), the cumulative month to month shortfall from that to November 2012 came to $663.09 billion. Yes, it took five full years for real retail to recover. But the peak to trough decline in real GDP from 4Q2007 to 2Q2009 alone, on the other hand, was $639.2 billion, not even half way through the great retail depression. Retail spending shows only part of the picture.

Which is why it's wrong to imply, as the authors do, that the decline in spending, supposedly linked to the poorest homeowners, explains the Great Recession. It only explains about a third of it, but just how much of that can be blamed on the poorest homeowners remains a mystery.

Catastrophic Q1 2014 GDP report at 0.1% makes 21 quarterly reports under Obama averaging just 1.76% each

The latest GDP report is here.

The decline in GDP in Q1 to 0.1% annualized was from 2.6% annualized in Q4 2013, a whopping 96% free fall. In other words, the economy did a panic stop, slamming on the brakes and hitting the wall.

Blaming it on the winter, for those of us who've seen more than fifty of them north of the Mason-Dixon Line, is laughable beyond belief. We don't hibernate like bears up here. We get up early and blow the snow off the 200 feet of driveway and get on with our day.

Here's the truth: Quarter on quarter durable goods consumption crashed over 70%, nondurable over 95%. Real nonresidential fixed investment was a catastrophe, the spread plummeting 136%. Residential investment added a decline of 5.7% to the previous quarter's decline of 7.9%. Exports went deep sea diving, the spread down 180% quarter on quarter, and the spread for imports was down even more, 193%. A slight uptick in government spending kept GDP barely positive.  

Five years of GDP reports under Obama have averaged just 1.24% per year, so the sixth year is off to a terrible start at 0.1%.

Eight years of GDP reports under Bush averaged 2.13% per year, pretty lame all by itself but 1.7 times better than Obama so far.

I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Obama's awful GDP explains lower incomes, long term unemployment, government dependency and loss of confidence

So says Investors.com here:

Had his recovery matched Ronald Reagan's growth rates, U.S. GDP would be $2 trillion bigger today. Had it matched John Kennedy's, it would be $3 trillion bigger. These aren't just abstract numbers. Obama's weak recovery explains why household incomes are lower than they were when the recession ended, why millions are long-term unemployed and millions more have given up looking for work, why government dependency is at all-time highs and why confidence is so low.

----------------------------------

Which is why our propagandists in the media have buried the most important story of our time. America's first black president is an abject failure.

America Becomes France, Shrugs Shoulders Over Disastrous Q1 GDP Of 0.1%, News Media Avoid Story

No major news outlet makes the disaster of GDP under Obama, who owns the absolute worst record in the post-war, the lead story this morning except for business news outlets like CNBC and Marketwatch. ABC's story is a one line headline from AP. That's it! You have to actively go looking for the GDP story under "Money" or "Business" or "Economy" to find it just about everywhere even though it is the story of our time because it's the reason there are no jobs, no income growth, declining living standards and growing income inequality. All brought to you by Barack Hussein Obama, hm hm hm, who has turned America into a slum.

Q1 2014 GDP 0.1%: Consensus 1.2% Only Overestimated By 1100%, That's All!

Nothing Else Is Working, So The US Federal Reserve Should Be QEing Gold Instead Of Treasuries

So said Christopher T. Mahoney, a former Vice Chairman at Moody's, for Project-Syndicate last June, here, just not in so many words:

It may be that when rates are at the zero bound and the banking system is broken, the appropriate policy instrument may not be to buy bonds from banks, since buying them doesn’t seem to affect the price level. Bernanke was certainly correct that the Fed could create inflation by dropping money on citizens from helicopters, but that would be a rather blunt instrument.

It seems to me that the Fed needs to buy something besides Treasury and agency bonds. The obvious alternative to Treasuries would be foreign government bonds, or gold. Since the former would constitute a “currency war”, that would seem to leave gold.

I have no doubt that if the Fed were to announce that it will buy gold until it has achieved 2% inflation and 6.5% unemployment, it would get there. It would disrupt the gold market (and enrich some of the wrong people) but that is a small price to pay. No foreign government could object to the Fed buying gold; it’s been doing it for 100 years.

But I said it more or less three times a year ago this month, here, here and especially here:

The United States at present is in the throes of a deflationary collapse of monetarist making, not of dollar currency but of credit money, and it is the principal reason for the collapse of GDP. One of the largest sources of the "currency" of credit money in recent years has been mortgages, which are now effectively unacceptable as collateral because of the rot permeating the system in the form of defaults and underwaters.

Federal Reserve policy has actually been removing such collateral from circulation, along with US Treasuries, by placing it on its balance sheet. But since there is nothing "real" behind the dollars the Fed replaces this collateral with, there is no corresponding expansion of credit in size to match the former vigor of the process.

So perhaps the Fed should QE gold instead of MBS and Treasuries to provide something real behind the money created which would give that money a surer basis in collateral.

Central banks around the world have been buying gold in quantities not seen in 30 years in order to fill the collateral gap. The Fed should join them.

Why Obama Should Not Be President: Even Recreational Pot Use Alters The Brain, Emotions and Motivation

It took Obama three days to respond to the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Abdulmutallab over Detroit. The New York Times noted his odd unresponsiveness several times in the article cited below. If you wonder why Obama's done nothing about the jobs and GDP crises, perhaps now you do.

The pot study story is here:

The 20 pot users in the study, ages 18 to 25, said they smoked marijuana an average of about four days a week, for an average total of about 11 joints. Half of them smoked fewer than six joints a week. Researchers scanned their brains and compared the results to those of 20 non-users who were matched for age, sex and other traits.

The results showed differences in two brain areas associated with emotion and motivation - the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens. Users showed higher density than non-users, as well as differences in shape of those areas. Both differences were more pronounced in those who reported smoking more marijuana.

See here for the New York Times report on December 28, 2009, three days after the bombing attempt on the Christmas Day flight bound for Detroit:

Mr. Obama, making his first public comments since the episode, said he had ordered his national security team “to keep up the pressure” on terrorists. ... Although he had been out of sight for three days, he assured Americans he was on top of the situation. ... The visual contrast of a president on vacation while there was anxiety about air travel also drew fire. Although aides issued statements describing conference calls with counterterrorism advisers, pictures of passengers enduring tougher airport screening were juxtaposed with reports of the president picnicking at the beach and playing sports. Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized Mr. Obama’s silence Monday before the president’s statement. “We’re now, what, 72 hours into this and the president’s not spoken, the vice president’s not spoken, the attorney general’s not spoken and Janet Napolitano has now told two different stories in two days,” he said on Fox News. “First, she said everything worked; now she said it didn’t.”

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts . . . of yield

Greece ranks 2nd worst for debt/gdp.

Cyrus Sanati for Fortune here recaps the recent history of the Greek debacle and the success this week of its auction of intermediate term bonds paying just 4.75%:

Thursday's debt offering only illustrates the severity at which the global junk debt bubble has grown and how desperate investors have become in their futile search for yield. Investors have no real confidence in Greece or Europe. Either they have lost their minds or they view Greece as some sort of momentum play in which they will try to cash out right before the bottom falls out of the market. Europe remains an economic basket case, and Greece continues to be the weakest link in a brittle chain.

WaPo's Chris Cillizza Doesn't Realize The Voters Already Decided Obama Was Incompetent Way Back In 2010

Yeah, Obama was reelected in 2012 and retained the Senate twice, but the House went Republican in 2010 and stayed that way in 2012 despite all the help the press has given Democrats, which is why they all remain so damn angry.

The only reason the House and Senate flipped Democrat under George Bush was the full court press of the press against him, which in the case of Obama has been completely silent on his Hurricane Sandy debacle, just as it has been on the worst GDP record in the post-war . . . under Obama. Scores of other bungles and idles also apply, from the Macondo Blowout to the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber to the Tsarnaevs to JOBS, and most recently Obama's signature debacle, the rollout of healthcare.gov. In every case the response is the same, learned from the Lutheran catechism: put the best construction on everything under Obama.

By comparison the economy and the country was a paradise under Bush, including the successful implementation of the awful Medicare Part D. GDP was 1.7 times better than it is under Obama, and will be even better than that by the time Obama is through. At least George Bush's liberalism was competent.

Cillizza's laughable commentary here.

Obama Is Going To Finish His Presidency With The Worst GDP Performance Since World War Two

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports here today its third and final estimate of Q4 2013 GDP at 2.6%, up from 2.4% in the second estimate. 2013 overall remains stuck at 1.9%, another paltry sum in the fourth full year after the so-called Great Recession ended.

Obama's average report for the five years 2009-2013 is 1.24%, the worst in the post-war.

Bush's average report at 2.13%, the worst up to the time, was 1.7 times better than Obama's to date.

Even if Obama racks up 3.5% real GDP growth in each of the next three years 2014, 2015 and 2016, he'll still end up with a worse record than Bush and the worst record since World War Two.

What a complete and utter loser.

Pathetic Obama GDP: Not A Single Year Above 2.8%, Worst Performance Ever

Despite today's 25% revision down of Q4 2013 GDP from 3.2% to 2.4%, 2013 GDP remains unchanged at 1.9% in the report.

If the final estimate for Q4 confirms today's number a month from now, it's entirely possible the 2013 total will be revised down as well.

But even so, Obama's record remains the worst in the post-war just as it is: an average annual report of just 1.24%.

Truly pathetic.