-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
President Obama, speaking to today’s Republican retreat in Baltimore, had this to say about this morning’s GDP numbers:
“The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent. That’s the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren’t seeing positive job growth, we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So you’ve seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year.”
Oh, where to start? For the sake of ease, let’s just say the GDP of country A is $100. If it declines 6 percent, that would bring it down to $94. Then, if it bumps back up by 6 percent, that brings the GDP to $99.64. That is not, in fact, a 12 percent reversal!
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/29/obama-makes-stunning-math-erro
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pete| 1.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Oh, you. Don't you understand he was just simplifying for the good of his stupid subjects. If they couldn't understand his healthcare takeover, what are the chances they could handle simple math? Do not question the king.
Tessa| 1.29.10 @ 7:41PM
Pete, I only have to say LOL, and thank you.
The damester| 1.31.10 @ 7:17PM
You morons gotta be kidding me. Did you IDIOTS who wrote and edited this piece of political propaganda FORGET TO INCLUDE the fact that a 6% LOSS, rather than be repeated (which is what the right was hoping for so they could ride back to power on the backs of suffering and deluded Americans) was instead a 6% GAIN?N You WERE losing 6 cents per minute, now you are GAINING 6 cents per minute, for a difference of....wait for it..... 12 CENTS YOU STUCK-ON-STUPID OPPOSITIONISTS!!!
James Martin| 1.29.10 @ 1:29PM
It's a sad thing to watch the POTUS so proudly strut his mediocre intellect and adolescent judgement.
His legacy will be that he and his were able to squeeze the entitlement mango until every last drop was gone. So that, without a whit of backing accomplishment or proven ability, he became the putative leader of the free world.
Like I said, kind of sad.
Craig Leoanrdi| 1.29.10 @ 9:56PM
Who are you comparing Obama to intellectually, George Bush? You have got to be kidding. George on a good day is qualified to run a mid size company or maybe a ball team. He wasn't bad at that.
You don't realize just how close we may have come to some really bad years. Shops boarded up. The distribution of goods completed stalled.
No functional banks.
You don't realize how much he really held the country together.
What are you afraid of really?
Michael S.| 1.30.10 @ 11:39AM
Actually, George did run a ball team. He screwed that up too.
THE DAMESTER| 1.31.10 @ 7:30PM
I'll tell you what I'm afraid of, and I represent a considerable portion of all Obama-haters. Deep down inside, I'm afraid that history may record that folks who look like me ran this country past the red line, and it took a guy who looks like HIM to fix it. Therefore, I cannot let him fix it, or one day my grandkids will ask me why I was ever such an a-hole in my day. So if he says "up" we will say "down",if he says "spend" we'll say "you shudda saved!" and if he says "save" we'll yell "you shudda spent! and if he says "light" we'll say "obviously dark is better, this proves you can't drive, here, gimme the wheel...."
Seriously, how long would YOU put up with someone like that when you are driving a carpool, much less running a country???
Something to consider.
Tammy| 2.1.10 @ 12:21AM
No "Crotch Bombers" and 10+% unemployment under GWB!! Obama is incompetent.
Johnson| 2.15.10 @ 10:12PM
Just shoe bombers and a war based on a complete lie, yeah, that's way better.
Tim| 1.29.10 @ 1:44PM
One more SIX and we will all be in trouble...
Chris Thiele| 1.29.10 @ 1:48PM
Isn't this GDP "Increase" just the result of the "Simulas" spending? One never gets the whole picture from any media outlet. Very irritating. Just the facts for a change would be refreshing.
Pete| 1.29.10 @ 1:59PM
Nope, just a sign of a long overdue cyclical recovery...temporary and jobless due to the various fraudulent spending packages mandated by our king. Next stop, inflation.
5th Grad Math| 1.29.10 @ 2:05PM
He said "12% reversal" after he was talking about growth growth rates of the GDP!
That means the difference in growth rates of the GDP had changed from -6% in Jan '09 to +6% in Jan '10, showing a reversal in growth percentages of 12%.
What is stunning is that you don't understand that simple math. He didn't say it was a 12% change in GDP. He said it was a 12% change in GDP growth rates.
Bob| 1.29.10 @ 2:31PM
I was going to correct Phil as well. But he was too busy trying to get a talking point before he could actually think about it. It's like a receiver thinking about where he's going before he catches the ball. That said, as I've said many times, the economic cycle is not affected much by presidents -- either positively or negatively. Just as Bush shouldn't get all of the blame, Obama shouldn't get all of the credit. If the Bush presidency ended in 2005, he would have looked like a hero and the next president would have gotten the housing bubble. Let's face it, Obama's statement is overreach but so are a lot of the statement here.
Patriot| 1.29.10 @ 3:04PM
Credit for what--10+% unemployment? Trust me, your dear leader will get all of the CREDIT for this disastrous statistic!
Can't wait for November; throw the liberal bums out!
stan russo| 1.29.10 @ 3:46PM
Even if he was the smartest mathematician, Nobama is still a liar and a fraud...PERIOD
gdp| 1.29.10 @ 7:27PM
Huh?
If you had a growth rate of -6%, and then you had a 12% change in the growth rate, that means the new growth rate is either -6.72% or -5.28%. Right?
Franklin| 1.29.10 @ 3:24PM
"Stunning math error"?
Not to me.
Richard Baker| 1.29.10 @ 3:25PM
He's a lawyer. A friend who is a chemical engineer and a lawyer says that most lawyers couldn't pass thermodynamics. It's no wonder the Kenyan is wrong. Maybe he used Mayan math.
the damester| 1.31.10 @ 7:38PM
BLOG ALERT!! The above post (as evidenced by the code phrase "the Kenyan") is a perfect example of a wanna-be klansman manning his keyboard in an attempt to earn his dis-information merit-badge.
BE ALERT FOR THESE AND OTHER UN-AMERICAN ANTI-OBAMITES!!! THEY ARE A THREAT TO TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
Tammy| 2.1.10 @ 12:13AM
Thanks for that, moron. Glad you can see into Baker's heart.
Unlike you Marxists--at least Baker has one.
Jim O'Brien| 1.29.10 @ 3:28PM
How do we know the data hasn't been manipulated by Obama's Commerce Department? http://www.bea.gov/newsrelease.....elease.htm
AnnW| 1.29.10 @ 3:36PM
Great example of conservative/Republican misrepresentation. Way to go, Phil, for proving the President's point!
WestWright| 1.29.10 @ 3:44PM
WTG AnnW, do you get paid a minimum wage to buttlick Obama or do you do so for free?
Jim Hlavac | 1.29.10 @ 4:05PM
Regardless of the innumeracy or math-wizardry of anyone -- anyone who believes that the GDP rose 6% is a bit off their rocker. Even in our "Best of times" we barely hit 4% or 5% growth without everyone running around about an "overheated" economy, that the Fed puts the brakes on. And I suppose if you just inflate the money by a few percentage points the GDP figures would look higher in the absolute, but not the percentage, inflation adjusted. Still, to have the gov't issue the figures, when it is the gov't which can hide, create, and manipulate the data, well, then, I doubt, in our highly political times, with non-existent legislative districts getting all manner of funds from stimulus spending that is more like musical chairs down at the state run bank, that there was any political skullduggery around. Let's see, nearly every good indicator falling, every bad indicator rising, or the lot of them just stagnating along -- and wow! a 6% rise in growth? What, in bankruptcy filings? In foreclosures? In jobs saved? Who knows? It's all funny math, isn't it now?
Yeah, and too, just like all of a sudden every car company but Chrysler and GM are turning out cars that need massive recalls because of gov't decrees. The Vaunted Japanese are now shown to have massive defects to the point of not even selling what they got on the lot -- how did they stumble just as the gov't needs a boost in GM sales? Hmmm.
Perhaps the GDP did stop falling, and perhaps it rose, but the swing, however calculated strikes me as pure political puffery.
Oh happy days are here again, now that the president's economic policies, known in all prior incarnations to do nothing, now magically work.
I hear bridges are cheap this year too, and sales are up of swamp land.
THE DAMESTER| 1.31.10 @ 7:40PM
BLOG ALERT!! The above post is a perfect example of a wanna-be klansman manning his keyboard in an attempt to earn his dis-information merit-badge.
BE ALERT FOR THESE AND OTHER UN-AMERICAN ANTI-OBAMITES!!! THEY ARE A THREAT TO TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
Tammy| 2.1.10 @ 12:14AM
Moron!
Drew Mac| 1.29.10 @ 5:39PM
I'm new here and maybe I haven't mastered this site's search function, but is this post really the only thing the American Spectator has posted about today's Obama/Baltimore debate? Seems kind of petty.
Steve| 1.29.10 @ 7:22PM
Quin H. posted something around 1:30 that now closes with, "NOTE: As indicated in the comments below, I have removed a mild, implied vulgarity from my original post." So who's petty now?
On a more serious note, Philip Klein rose above the hyperventilating rhetoric with a substantive post here: http://spectator.org/blog/2010.....ntegrating
Casey| 1.29.10 @ 8:54PM
Allow me to correct your math.
If GDP starts at 100 and decreases 6%, it is 94.
This is important:
Falling at that rate, it would next hit 88.36.
If however it reverses course and gains 6%, it will be 99.64.
99.64-88.36=11.28
11.28 divided by 94=exactly 12% reversal.
Or you could just at the absolute value of the original rate (-6) to the absolute value of the new rate (6), which is what the president did.
Republican or democrat, math is math, folks. Sorry.
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 9:17PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Makes Stunning Math … American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cindy| 1.29.10 @ 9:47PM
"Republican or democrat, math is math, folks. Sorry."
well said Casey.
reecegswofford| 1.29.10 @ 11:47PM
The Mayans were far better than Opromisa at math.
The Mayans come on last, however, when it comes to human sacrifice!
the damester| 1.31.10 @ 7:44PM
What I want to hear from is an anti-Obamite with the INTEGRITY, INTELLEGENCE, AND INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO ADMIT THAT THIS ARTICLE, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, FALSELY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF A MATH ERROR.
Tammy| 2.1.10 @ 12:16AM
You're nuts! Work for Axelrod, troll?
Pingback| 1.30.10 @ 2:48AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Makes Stunning Math … capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
NativeNative| 1.30.10 @ 3:27AM
Now they're turning to the race they're trying to keep out, to defend their math!!! LOL!! Obama did mention 2003, and I don't see any calculations made with a 2003 reference. Everybody's comparing 2009 to 2010. What happened to 2003 in this calculating. HELLO!! That's our problem. Business America relies on basic math instead of Quantitative Analysis. Calculate in all the factors that were proposed, INCLUDE 2003, and see how the numbers "crunch" instead of relying on something that was never stated in order to cast your stones! When math is math, especially under Bush's "No Student Left Behind," maybe the Administration's mathematicians were voted in over actual business degree leaders who were kept out because they didn't have as much work experience as the mathematicians! Math Is Math. I agree. But it's not Economics!
Jimmy Tangle| 1.30.10 @ 4:40AM
You know...the Nazis used quantitative analysis to kill millions of Jews. That's if you actually believe the Jews math.
Jane| 1.30.10 @ 9:33AM
I don't know if the percent reversal Obama quoted is correct but I do know that none of you know how to read. The math here is pretty simple if you read the word problem properly. The first part of the problem is only relevant as to finding the low point of the GDP before the reversal. Say it started at 100 and lost 6 percent. First, you need to find 6% of 100. Then, to find the actual current growth in the economy, you need to find the percent difference between the GDP at its low point and at its current point. That is the real percent of change. Nothing before the difference is relevant, only the current percent of growth. Just for the record, while Bush expanded "No Child Left Behind", it was Clinton's brainchild and he is the one who pushed it through.
todji| 1.30.10 @ 3:04PM
Philip Klein should be ashamed. Anyone who ever takes this man seriously is an absolute fool- he can't do simple math for chrissakes!
Obama's 12% is the CHANGE IN GROWTH RATES moron.
Ballistica| 1.31.10 @ 2:31PM
The issue is that Obama gives the impression the 12% translates to 12% growth in a year. Also, how does job growth have anything to do with GDP (in this economy)? Why did a 12% growth rate increase (against a year ago's figure) not translate into any job growth?
The dems should be shocked at that 5% figure...it means business is now humming along and they don't need to hire anyone (at least in the short/medium term). Those manu jobs are gone forever...that GDP figure almost proves it.
They should be funneling millions into job re-training and towns across the country should be slashing business taxes to encourage re-investment, prevent offshoring, and provide incentives to re-hire. Basically, the exact opposite of what Oregon just did.
THE DAMESTER| 1.31.10 @ 7:58PM
What kind of MORON would think that Obama even REMOTELY meant that the 12% he was talking about was growth, instead of net turnaround, which was obvious to all with a 3-digit IQ.
I guess the rest of you (sub-80 IQ) WOULD think he meant 12% positive growth. You are the same idiots that believed in the death squads and birther conspiracies.
Tammy| 2.1.10 @ 12:18AM
Death squads? You're certifiable, moron. You're probably a Truther!
You know, there's a hotline you can call for your problem.