Q3 GDP: 2.0%

posted at 9:21 am on October 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Looks like I had it about right yesterday, after the latest durable-goods report showed some of the lost ground being regained in the final month of the third quarter.  The economy expanded in the third quarter at an annualized rate of 2.0%, a slight improvement over Q2′s 1.3% but still stuck firmly in the stagnation band.  One reason, though, is because the federal government spent at a faster rate than earlier:

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.0 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see box below). The “second” estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29, 2012.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), federal government spending, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected an upturn in federal government spending, a downturn in imports, an acceleration in PCE, a smaller decrease in private inventory investment, an acceleration in residential fixed investment, and a smaller decrease in state and local government spending that were partly offset by downturns in exports and in nonresidential fixed investment.

Here’s the key point on federal spending:

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent in the second. National defense increased 13.0 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent. Nondefense increased 3.0 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.4 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.0 percent.

That boost has a lot to do with the improvement, especially since exports actually fell in the quarter by 1.6%.  Personal consumption kept pace with the overall number at 2.0%, though — not enough to give any indication of a massive consumer-fueled growth spurt on the horizon.  Real final sales of domestic product came in at 2.1%, which shows that the 2.0% growth wasn’t due to inventory inflation, as was the case at the end of 2009.

Reuters points out the government-fueled number, and also the fact that the year is still coming in lower than last year:

The U.S. economy expanded at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by an uptick in consumer spending and a burst of government spending. …

The pickup in gross domestic product may help President Barack Obama’s message that the economy is improving.

Still, growth remains too weak to rapidly boost hiring. And the 1.74 percent rate for 2012 trails last year’s 1.8 percent growth, a point GOP nominee Mitt Romney will emphasize.

No one who understands economics will argue that a 2.0% quarter shows an improving economy, especially not when that number relied on federal government spending increases.  Instead, people will focus on the fact that we’re nowhere near a rate of growth that will even allow job creation to keep up with population growth, let alone put the unemployed back to work.  In fact, we’re close to net job loss level numbers — and I suspect that the second iteration of Q3 GDP due in a month may drop the number a bit lower than we’re seeing today.

Update: Daniel Halper reminds us that this is less than half of what the White House projected growth would be this year:

The average GDP growth for the first three quarters of this year is 1.77 percent, according to data released by the the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning. That is less than half of what the White House predicted GDP growth would be this year, and less than a third of what the Obama administration projected when it first took office. …

When Obama first came into office, in 2009, the White House projected that GDP growth this year (2012) would be 4.6 percent. Then, in 2010, the White House downplayed that projection to 4.3 percent. And last year, the forecast looked even gloomier, at 3.6 percent.

But as the numbers show, the three quarter average of this year came in even worse: 1.77 percent.

That’s more than just an academic exercise.  Budget projections depend on economic assumptions about growth, which directly impacts revenue and indirectly impacts demand on safety-net programs.  A miss of this magnitude has significant implications for White House budget claims — especially on deficits.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Is that number fake?

dogsoldier on October 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent in the second. National defense increased 13.0 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent.

National defense increased 13%?! What was that money spent on? And what does that mean for 2013 if those planned cuts in defense go through?

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Three cheers for mediocrity! Oh, uh, make that just two cheers! No? OK, we’ll settle for one cheer for mediocrity! Too much? Meh.

Vote for Barry like your lady parts depend on it! Blergh!

Punchenko on October 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

One reason, though, is because the federal government spent at a faster rate than earlier:

Goosing the system to produce better numbers right before the election. It used to be, that sentiment would be called cynical. Now it’s just called reality.

November 6 can’t come soon enough.

rbj on October 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

First estimate of 3rd Qtr GDP is 2%. I wonder if that defense spending increase was bribes to keep defense contractors from adhering to WARN…

Next month it’ll be revised to 1.8 and in December will settle in at 1.5. The revision will be due to less defense spending then previously estimated.

Then again, with the economy “improving”, maybe Barack won’t need to hike taxes, huh?

BKeyser on October 26, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Atom bomb!!!11

wargamer6 on October 26, 2012 at 9:26 AM

On November 7th it will be revised down to 1.5% and blamed on President-elect Romney.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

*This number to revised downward at some point after November 6th.

Defenestratus on October 26, 2012 at 9:27 AM

It’s unbelievable that half the country is OK with this as a new “nortmal,” and wants 4 more years, plus trillion-per-year deficits.

Do we really want to be like France? C’mon, really?

visions on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Final dump of stimulus(obamas stash), to be revised down to 1.4 soon after election.

tim c on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Most of that growth is from the housing boom occurring in D.C., or as Instapundit refers to it: The Capitol of Panem.

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

nortmal normal

visions on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

OT: Rasmussen as PA Senate as a tie.

wargamer6 on October 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Bottom line: the increase is a result of more government spending.

People in the private economy have not felt the affects of this…and they know it.

The economic outlook for the private sector is also not good. Anyone who actually looks at this data on a regular basis knows it.

Numbers can be a double-edged sword and it is best not to over-estimate their negative affects.

People know their everyday situation is not improving. They also see no big plans in the future to help that.

Marcus Traianus on October 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Most of that growth is from the housing boom occurring in D.C., or as Instapundit refers to it: The Capitol of Panem.

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Heh. They do seem to be living it up in DC while the 12 districts(or 57 states) are suffering through the economic malaise.

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The GDP number is right in line with expectations.

Although we’re coming off a quarter where the U.S. economy could reasonably be described as being in a “microrecession”, as we had long expected, we anticipate that the GDP growth rate will be stronger in the third quarter of 2012 by comparison. Going by the dividend futures data we’ve had available since November 2011, the third quarter of 2012 has always looked as if it would be the strongest in 2012. Much like how the second quarter of 2008 was the strongest quarter in that year, even though the U.S. economy had already peaked and had begun falling into recession earlier in December 2007.

ironman on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

No one who understands economics will argue that a 2.0% quarter shows an improving economy, especially not when that number relied on federal government spending increases

Given the context of a near economic collapse 4 years ago and fears from the Fed of a prolonged balance sheet recession, it’s generally in line with expectations and above recession territory.

Housing and auto sales look strong but the weak global economy continues to hang over the US and will probably continue to depress stronger GDP number. But defense spending was key.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

People know their everyday situation is not improving

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

dogsoldier on October 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM

of course its not fake, but it will certainly be “adjusted” at a later date.

chasdal on October 26, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The big question is if you remove the 9.6% growth in federal spending are you actually in negative growth? Just off the top of my head I figure that should be around 1.5% to 2% worth of growth.

housing boom occurring in D.C.

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Greeeat. I guess the People’s Republic of Montgomery County will be asking me for even more money in property taxes this year.

PetecminMd on October 26, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

20% of homeowners are underwater on their mortgage. That’s what you consider good housing prices? How about the median household income? How’s that going for folks since 2009?

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Looking forward to Romney’s economic speech this afternoon in Ames, IA

bayview on October 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Spin away lsm

Revision down post election

cmsinaz on October 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Obama admits he has superior 7th grade Math skills…Certainly he can fix this?

workingclass artist on October 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I trust nothing coming out of the administration.

Bottom line: the increase is a result of more government spending.

Marcus Traianus on October 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Total BS and shallow thinking, very little cause and effect if any.

Wade on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Is that photo titled “The Screwing Jobs President”?

andycanuck on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Yes, those 47 million on food stamps love that their Apple stock soared to $600 per share due to some products being made by slave kids in China.

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Oh, you mean the fact that the Dow lost over 200 points a couple of days ago was a lie?

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It’s sad how liberals conflate Wall Street with the economy. Two percent growth isn’t very good, slick. It’s not nearly good enough.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

So just good enough that the administration will try to argue that it’s some great achievement, but thoroughly weak enough that we’ll be able to point out that the economy still stinks…

Pretty sad when 2% growth is something the administration would care to trumpet, but I suppose when the alternative is your universally panned mistake of a perverted youth outreach ad, you’ll jump at anything.

Gingotts on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It’s also pretty funny that somebody would use rising housing prices as an index of economic health, considering what we’ve seen over the last 10 years.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

It’s sad how liberals conflate Wall Street with the economy. Two percent growth isn’t very good, slick. It’s not nearly good enough.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

George Bush Sr. had 4.5% Q3 GDP growth in 1992.

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

No one who understands economics will argue that a 2.0% quarter shows an improving economy, especially not when that number relied on federal government spending increases

Given the context of a near economic collapse 4 years ago and fears from the Fed of a prolonged balance sheet recession, it’s generally in line with expectations and above recession territory.

Housing and auto sales look strong but the weak global economy continues to hang over the US and will probably continue to depress stronger GDP number. But defense spending was key.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

The evidence is in; there’s no reason – none – to think that a) that ‘collapse’ would’ve yielded worse than we are today ( and historical evidence to suggest we’d have been better off by now), and b) those ‘fears from the Fed of a prolonged balance sheet recession’ weren’t averted by the stimulus actions, now were they?

Are you willfully ignorant, or simply a prevaricating piece of sh1t?

Midas on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

OT: Rasmussen as PA Senate as a tie.

wargamer6 on October 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Let’s see Hurricane Sandy voting in Philly. So much for booing God…

Archivarix on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Given the context of a near economic collapse 4 years ago and fears from the Fed of a prolonged balance sheet recession, it’s generally in line with expectations and above recession territory.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

It may be in-line for the experts, but it certainly NOT in-line with what Obama and his “Experts” told us.
In fact, GDP is about half of his projection.
Kind of like him.

Jabberwock on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Pretty sad when 2% growth is something the administration would care to trumpet, but I suppose when the alternative is your universally panned mistake of a perverted youth outreach ad, you’ll jump at anything.

Gingotts on October 26, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Agreed. I’ll bet that this number is revised downward by the time that the next report comes out.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

September was the largest sales month of US Treasury notes in history.

At the time it was unclear why the turbo-tax cheat made such a bold move, now we know. Obama is trying to ram through as much spending, likely on his ‘voting block’, as he can before the election.

Look for additional ‘cash transfers’ before his removal from office.

Freddy on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Business in this country are sick and tired of this administration and Congress. This is the 21st Century version of ‘Going Galt’. And if we don’t kick this bozo’s butt out of office, we will not have seen anything yet.

MikeinPRCA on October 26, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Given the context of a near economic collapse 4 years ago and fears from the Fed of a prolonged balance sheet recession, it’s generally in line with expectations and above recession territory.

Housing and auto sales look strong but the weak global economy continues to hang over the US and will probably continue to depress stronger GDP number. But defense spending was key.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

It’s in line with expectations that are conditioned by four years of inept stewardship and misguided fiscal and economic policies.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:46 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Whatever. Gummyandpokeme said no such thing would happen, therefore it did not. You bigot.

Bishop on October 26, 2012 at 9:46 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Whoa, that is a huge bounce for Obama there gumbo.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Just wait until sequestration hits . . . and unfortunately for President-Elect Romney (yes, that is what I said . . . positive thinking), he is going to face a worse mess than BO faced when he took office.

Voter from WA State on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Don’t jinx it!

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

“He’s pulled us back from the brink!!!”

The problem is, we’re still standing right next to the brink, and the ground is eroding.

Oh well…Forward!

Droopy on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Whoa, that is a huge bounce for Obama there gumbo.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Atomic bomb.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Growth! On the right track!!

//

mrscullen on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Not out publicly yet, but Rasmussen has WI at 49-49.

gumbyandpokey on October 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

How do you get the numbers before Rasmussen updates their site?

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Right in line with Gallup. It looks like Romney’s settled at 50% in a lot of national polls. Which is a good place to be 11 days before the election.

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

“He’s pulled us back from the brink!!!”

The problem is, we’re still standing right next to the brink, and the ground is eroding.

Oh well…Forward!

Droopy on October 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Hahaha, that’s classic. Either these people are morons or they know exactly what they are doing. They cry out “He pulled us back from the brink!” and then they use a slogan like Forward. REALLY?!?!?!

MobileVideoEngineer on October 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Not out publicly yet, but Rasmussen has WI at 49-49.

gumbyandpokey on October 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

How do you know? Serious question.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Barry/Axelrod cannot afford anything more than a low rent paid troll like gumbopoked.

bayview on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Not out publicly yet, but Rasmussen has WI at 49-49.

gumbyandpokey on October 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

That could determine the election if O-I-H-O acts stupidly.

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Are you willfully ignorant, or simply a prevaricating piece of sh1t?

Midas on October 26, 2012 at 9:43 AM

He’s a mostly ignorant troll who thinks he sounds informed if he repeats things he read in a Krugman column like “balance sheet recession.”

Crap like “balance sheet recession” is really nothing more than a poor justification for increased government regulation and spending. Unfortunately, every time we’ve tried it (FDR, Carter, Obama) we’ve seen nothing but continued economic problems. But the left continues to push it despite the fact that math crushes their ideology every time…

PetecminMd on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

OT: Rasmussen as PA Senate as a tie.

wargamer6 on October 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Once Romney surged to the lead (and closed and got out ahead in the swing states), the Senate polls have followed.

If Republican turnout is good in VA, FL, PA, OH, and WI, the Republicans will win at least 3, and maybe all 5, of those Senate seats. Combine those with the 3 in the Northwest and Ben Nelson’s seat, and That is a pick-up of potentially 9 (I think 4 are given at this moment). Than if Republicans can hold Heller’s seat and Lugar’s seat, lose Brown’s seat and the ME seat, they would be looking at +7, and either CT or MO, gets us to +8, and 55 seats. That is why I have said all along that between 53 and 55 seats is very possible, and if Republicans really have a good night, 57 is not out of the question.

However, Republicans will definitely have 51 votes in the Senate based on how the Senate races are shaping up.

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I’ve seen quite a few flashy headlines about this around the net. I guess the media stooges are trying to fool the low info voters that the economy is doing great.

Wigglesworth on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

That’s more than just an academic exercise. Budget projections depend on economic assumptions about growth, which directly impacts revenue and indirectly impacts demand on safety-net programs. A miss of this magnitude has significant implications for White House budget claims — especially on deficits.

It works for both teams. Romney is needing 5% growth for at least 12 years to get his balanced budget after he is out of office and no longer in power.

With the safety net programs in effect, I do not see him passing 4.5% at any point in his first term and after that probably nothing better than average 3.4-3.6% once that easy fruit has been picked by reclaiming lost production and start moving towards new production.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Not out publicly yet, but Rasmussen has WI at 49-49.

gumbyandpokey on October 26, 2012 at 9:48 AM

How can that be? You told us that Romney lost in WI without the election happening.

That keeps you at 0 for every prediction you have made.

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

How do you get the numbers before Rasmussen updates their site?

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Some people shell out $$$ to get Rasmussen’s email updates with polling data. This comes out sooner than the actual postings on his website.

These people post in other forums and I post it here,

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Is that number fake?

dogsoldier on October 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM

We all know it will be revised downwards in the next month or so. And then again in the months following.

nukemhill on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Once Romney surged to the lead (and closed and got out ahead in the swing states), the Senate polls have followed.

If Republican turnout is good in VA, FL, PA, OH, and WI, the Republicans will win at least 3, and maybe all 5, of those Senate seats. Combine those with the 3 in the Northwest and Ben Nelson’s seat, and That is a pick-up of potentially 9 (I think 4 are given at this moment). Than if Republicans can hold Heller’s seat and Lugar’s seat, lose Brown’s seat and the ME seat, they would be looking at +7, and either CT or MO, gets us to +8, and 55 seats. That is why I have said all along that between 53 and 55 seats is very possible, and if Republicans really have a good night, 57 is not out of the question.

However, Republicans will definitely have 51 votes in the Senate based on how the Senate races are shaping up.

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Romney is going to have coattails. He’ll take Allen along with him, assuming Allen can avoid sticking his foot in his mouth over the next 11 days (a big if, considering this class of Senate candidates!)

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

People know their everyday situation is not improving

Right – the lying DJIA and S&P which is in their 401(k)s. Lying housing prices, too.

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

GALLUP:

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS:

Excellent/Good: 15% (-2)
Poor: 41%

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK:

Getting Better: 42%
Getting Worse: 54%

RASMUSSEN:

33% Say Home Is Worth Less Than Money Owed

48% Know Someone Who’s Quit Looking for Work in Bad Job Market

Only 21% of American Adults think the job market is better than it was a year ago.

49% Think America Weaker Today Than It Was Four Years Ago

Resist We Much on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I see. I suspected as much, but I wanted some confirmation. Thank you for the response!

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Daniel Halper reminds us that this is less than half of what the White House projected growth would be this year:

Math is racist!!!

/Chris Matthews

Good Lt on October 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM

National defense increased 13%?! What was that money spent on?

Doughboy on October 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Bayonets

faraway on October 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM

New Rasmussen Poll…fully post debate:

Romney: 50%
Obama: 46%

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM

TWO days ago:

Tomorrow will be fun since Obama will be gaining on Rasmussen, according to Ras himself!

gumbyandpokey on October 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM

How come those predicted RuPoll bounces never come to pass?

Resist We Much on October 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM

U of MI con sent 82.6

nimrod on October 26, 2012 at 9:57 AM

inklake on October 26, 2012 at 9:36 AM

GALLUP:

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS:

Excellent/Good: 15% (-2)
Poor: 41%

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK:

Getting Better: 42%
Getting Worse: 54%

RASMUSSEN:

33% Say Home Is Worth Less Than Money Owed

48% Know Someone Who’s Quit Looking for Work in Bad Job Market

Only 21% of American Adults think the job market is better than it was a year ago.

49% Think America Weaker Today Than It Was Four Years Ago

Resist We Much on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Given all of this, it is astonishing that Obama’s approval ratings are as high as they are. I just don’t get it. Could favorable press really account for what must be at least 10 points in the polls? (And yes, I’m fully aware of the sample weighting theories…)

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Cheating numbers will not help in avoiding a financial collapse.

Bmore on October 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

the time has past for these news to have effect. its all about ground game now.

nathor on October 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Romney is going to have coattails. He’ll take Allen along with him, assuming Allen can avoid sticking his foot in his mouth over the next 11 days (a big if, considering this class of Senate candidates!)

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

At this point, the candidates most prone to idiotic statements (Allen, Mourduck and Akin) need to be taken off the campaign trail. They can do nothing positive at this point, and can potentially lose based on some idiotic statement that they make (and the media is going to try to salvage the Senate to keep Obamacare alive, so they will pounce on anything that doesn’t sound right, and those 3 have made dumb statements before).

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM

George Bush Sr. had 4.5% Q3 GDP growth in 1992.

sentinelrules on October 26, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Bush Sr. had bad timing. If the election had been held a year earlier or a year later he would have been re-elected in a walk.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Housing and auto sales look strong but the fear O’bamna might get re-elected continues to hang over the US and will probably continue to depress stronger GDP number.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Bush Sr. had bad timing. If the election had been held a year earlier or a year later he would have been re-elected in a walk.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Read My Lips, You Cannot Trust Me.
I doubt it. He blew his chances with that. Not the economy.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Romney is going to have coattails. He’ll take Allen along with him, assuming Allen can avoid sticking his foot in his mouth over the next 11 days (a big if, considering this class of Senate candidates!)

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM

For months I was hearing about how the Virginia Senate race would be determined by which Presidential candidate won that state. Then Romney pulled ahead there and now nobody talks about that anymore.

If Romney has coattails enough to bring at least one of Allen, Mandel, Mack, Akin, or Smith across the line, we have the Senate with Ryan’s tie-breaking vote. That’s assuming Scott Brown loses.

Gingotts on October 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Sadly, those races are too close to try sitting on the lead. Allen seems to be using the defense spending issue to great effect against Kaine. If he sticks to that, he should be fine.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

the time has past for these news to have effect. its all about ground game now.

nathor on October 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Not everything is about the election. Regardless of who wins, the next President is going to have a miserable term facing the worst problems imaginable. Entitlements must be reformed because, as even Obama has said in the past, they are UNSUSTAINABLE. Only 4% of Americans polled want MORE of Obamanomics. The overwhelming majority want CHANGE. If he is reelected, he is going to have to change or find himself even more isolated and increasingly despised.

Resist We Much on October 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Given all of this, it is astonishing that Obama’s approval ratings are as high as they are. I just don’t get it. Could favorable press really account for what must be at least 10 points in the polls? (And yes, I’m fully aware of the sample weighting theories…)

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The answer lies is what no political candidate can say and that’s the 47% comment. If you are dependent on government than a 2% GDP doesn’t matter to you but a 9.6% growth in government is a positive boon.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I repeat>
Best news of the day from
battlegoundwatch-

Today’s OHIO in one tweet: 220k fewer Dems have voted vs 2008, 30k more GOP. That’s net 250k. Obama won by 260k in ’08. Now 11 days left.

Bensonofben on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

With the safety net programs in effect, I do not see him passing 4.5% at any point in his first term and after that probably nothing better than average 3.4-3.6% once that easy fruit has been picked by reclaiming lost production and start moving towards new production.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 9:51 AM

A number of Wall Street’s smartest money managers are predicting another recession in the next 18 months- and that’s regardless of who wins the election in November.

It’s really just the right wing that’s so enamored with the idea of a return to robust economic growth after a Romney win. When you systematically review global demand outlook, domestic growth by sector, and consumer wealth (and wealth loss), the numbers don’t suggest a return to strong growth anytime soon.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

If he is reelected, he is going to have to change or find himself even more isolated and increasingly despised.

Resist We Much on October 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Why should he have to change? He’ll be more flexible in a second term. He can do – or not do – whatever he wants.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Read My Lips, You Cannot Trust Me.
I doubt it. He blew his chances with that. Not the economy.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

There might be something to that, but in ’91 and early ’92, the elder Bush was sitting on 90-percent approval ratings.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Why should he have to change? He’ll be more flexible in a second term. He can do – or not do – whatever he wants.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I doubt it. If Obama wins (a big if), he’ll win ugly, without a mandate to do much of anything. It’ll mean another four years of stagnation.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No, actually over two decades of experience in the financial markets.

In the BEA’s release they fully noted, first, the number reflects an increase in government spending.

Here’s a clue- look at past averages and timing.

Next clue, dig down on the PCE and find the underlying reasons/sources.

Oh and no small issue that 23 million people are out of work, historic numbers are “out” of the labor force, record numbers of people on SS disability, record numbers of people on food stamps.

Do you think they are buying that things are getting better? Think they are looking at the S&P? Think they can articulate the plan that’s going to help their misery end?

I doubt it because many of them are my neighbors and we talk a lot. They are also people who come to various charitable organizations. We try to give them hope, because right now there is none.

Marcus Traianus on October 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Bush Sr. had bad timing. If the election had been held a year earlier or a year later he would have been re-elected in a walk.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Read My Lips, You Cannot Trust Me.
I doubt it. He blew his chances with that. Not the economy.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM

No, PackerBronco raises a legitimate point.

The Fed released statistics showing the economic recovery had started in March of 1991 or 18 months before the 1992 election. But the Democrat Media censored the story and embargoed it completely, because if they “reported” it their own candidate, whom they didn’t even know of at the time, would never win the 1992 election.

So they refused to report this good economic news for the 18 months leading up to the election. In reality, the recovery Clinton claimed credit for started 18 months before the media elected him.

The “editors” of the NY Times finally got around to admitting the Fed had released those pesky stats in March of 1991 showing said recovery had begun. They did so in 1999.

Del Dolemonte on October 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Maybe, I am discounting outside events and just looking at what the best possible scenario can be.

There is no way that we can sustain 5% growth as long as we are paying people to leave the workforce and stay out of it.

There is no way that we can sustain a 5% growth rate when our birthrate for the last several decades has been declining to just barely keeping up with the death rate and no where near keeping up with the we are paying you to get out of the workforce rate.

There is no way that we can sustain a 5% growth rate when we are burdened with a 100% of GDP debt, and in order to keep that debt manageable we destroy other wealth by making savings not worth it through artificially lower interest rates.

Romney is a snake oil salesman. A few of his targets got better despite Romney’s snake oil charms. That is what allows snake oil salesmen to make sales. STAPLES! ZOMG!

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I repeat>
Best news of the day from
battlegoundwatch-
Today’s OHIO in one tweet: 220k fewer Dems have voted vs 2008, 30k more GOP. That’s net 250k. Obama won by 260k in ’08. Now 11 days left.
Bensonofben on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Excellent work! Now let’s keep going and make sure victory is a sure thing. Let’s not let up for a minute.

bluegill on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Sadly, those races are too close to try sitting on the lead. Allen seems to be using the defense spending issue to great effect against Kaine. If he sticks to that, he should be fine.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM

They are close, but in MO, CM is below 50, and is just an awful candidate. People are either not going to vote, or break against her late. So, at this point, I think Akin probably wins unless he says something dumb.

Allen’s fate depends on Romneys anyway. If Romney wins, Allen will win. If Romney does not win, then Allen does not win.

As for Mourdock, it is close, but unless a game-changer happens (like Republican men feeling the need to keep talking about rape, and the aftermath, for reasons that are beyond me), he will win as well.

So, candidates that have proven that they are prone to saying idiotic things need to say as little as possible before Election Day.

milcus on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Crap like “balance sheet recession” is really nothing more than a poor justification for increased government regulation and spending. Unfortunately, every time we’ve tried it (FDR, Carter, Obama) we’ve seen nothing but continued economic problems. But the left continues to push it despite the fact that math crushes their ideology every time…

PetecminMd on October 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Your ignorance shines through once again… the most extensive analysis of the balance sheet recession as a model relevant to the US after 2007 has been provided by Barron’s, hardly a source of liberal thought.

It’a also interesting that you mention Carter, when in fact Reagan passed a much larger stimulus, as if active fiscal policy has always been a partisan issue.

You might try reading the financial press instead of parroting the observations of Glenn and other radio entertainers.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Del Dolemonte on October 26, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I had no clue the economy was bad in 1990, 1991 or any other time. All I know is that Bush screwed up by not getting Saddam at the time and that he lied to us with no uncertainty that it was a mistake.

I do not recall one person in my friends circle that were talking about a bad economy. The single biggest argument we all had was he could not be trusted to continue Reagan’s legacy and in fact was destroying it. As far as I know, most of my friends and myself voted Perot.

I doubt Perot would have entered the race is Bush had not broke that promise.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see box below). The “second” estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 29, 2012.

Wonder when the “Third” estimate for the third quarter will be released………

Tenwheeler on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I doubt it. If Obama wins (a big if), he’ll win ugly, without a mandate to do much of anything. It’ll mean another four years of stagnation.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Mandate has nothing to do with it. The basic fact is that Obama and Biden are both pricks with no decent managerial instincts. I shudder to think about 4 more years of those a&&h*le& in office.

PackerBronco on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Budget projections depend on economic assumptions about growth, which directly impacts revenue and indirectly impacts demand on safety-net programs. A miss of this magnitude has significant implications for White House budget claims — especially on deficits.

Irrelevant, since we currently have no budget. The entire exercise is simply fun with numbers.

BY any measure, this administration, led by a small man in a big job, simply cannot meet the needs of the people. Their sole goal is power.

juanito on October 26, 2012 at 10:17 AM

From Drudge:

WI: O 49% R 49%… DEVELOPING…

Wonder if it’s MLS. They usually release stuff late in the week…

Gingotts on October 26, 2012 at 10:17 AM

It’a also interesting that you mention Carter, when in fact Reagan passed a much larger stimulus, as if active fiscal policy has always been a partisan issue.

You might try reading the financial press instead of parroting the observations of Glenn and other radio entertainers.

bayam on October 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Oy. Reagan passed increased defense spending, which is well-known to be quite stimulative. Obama pointedly refused to increase defense spending in 2009 as part of his stimulus, opting instead for a serious of transfer payments that were not and should not have been expected to be stimulative.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I had no clue the economy was bad in 1990, 1991 or any other time. All I know is that Bush screwed up by not getting Saddam at the time and that he lied to us with no uncertainty that it was a mistake.

I do not recall one person in my friends circle that were talking about a bad economy. The single biggest argument we all had was he could not be trusted to continue Reagan’s legacy and in fact was destroying it. As far as I know, most of my friends and myself voted Perot.

I doubt Perot would have entered the race is Bush had not broke that promise.

astonerii on October 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

All of that drivel and you missed the point you were trying to make, but I repeat myself. The broken promise that cost GB the election was “Read my lips, no new taxes” which the Congress pawned Bush with. History is interesting if one reads it, instead of trying to rewrite it.

Fail.

Tenwheeler on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Snith is within a point of Casey in PA.

ghostwriter on October 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Most pertinent to this election, another broken promise…

The average GDP growth for the first three quarters of this year is 1.77 percent, according to data released by the the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning. That is less than half of what the White House predicted GDP growth would be this year, and less than a third of what the Obama administration projected when it first took office.

http://tinyurl.com/9sv52bv

Marcus Traianus on October 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2