"Two-thirds of the downward revision reflected a decline in health care spending."

It's starting to pick up now, but I'm in a tourist area and the surviving snowbirds have returned so it always picks up a bit this time of year. But we should have 20+ beds filled, and this past winter we ran 12-20. Likewise, we used to have a couple dozen outpatient specs to run in the evening. Instead it's more like 3 or 4. And we still have people -- even with insurance -- coming to the ED when they should be in their doctor's office.

My deductible is now 4000 dollars.

Needless to say but I won't be going to the doctors till I'm forced to. Lousy insurance won't even cover basic blood tests anymore.

A guy I work with had an MRI ordered by his doctor. Our joke "health insurance" refused to cover it. He would have had to pay 1500 or 2000 or so out of pocket for it. Which he doesn't have of course seeing as how our wages were frozen 5 years ago, among other reasons. So he didn't get the test.

And this my friends are REPUBLICAN DEATH PANELS in action! "pro-life"? LOLOLOLOL!

We are already almost done with the second quarter.

This is how long it takes to get a semi-final number.

third quarter. And so on. According to your logic it is meaningless to EVER talk about the GDP numbers.

saboteurs and hoarders strike again. They will do anything to make the Pres look bad.

This also reflects the problem we have in this country with low wages.

Obviously, swings happen in the short-term. Still, this is not good.

Still not good for a mature economy.

on yahoo.com finance ...

Gone now and never to be seen again.

It is not good. It is bad, very bad.

The economy sucks for most of the people in this country.

& recommend.

Our economy would explode! State and local governments would get the cash they sorely need. It would truly be a game changer. We would no longer be subsidizing Walmart and others. The money would be spent almost entirely each pay check instead of sitting in some Plutocrats bank account. Small businesses, while having more labor costs would also gain more revenue because people would have money to spend again.

Right now only the very wealthy have money, while for the rest of us things just get tighter and tighter. I am encouraged by the recent movements to get the money out of politics, but afraid it will not go far enough. They will want to make a few minor changes and say they did campaign finance reform. We have to make sure that when they do make changes that it is COMPLETE Campaign Finance Reform (CCFR)! We need to take a hard look at how individuals and corporations lobby our politicians. I understand that we need a way to make politicians understand the needs and desires of the citizenry for them to be able to legislate changes. Competing with that is the need to prevent undue influence over these same politicians to get what they want.

Publicly Funded Elections would go a long way to prevent the worst of the abuses, but not all. The other great thing about Publicly Funded Elections would be a short campaign period of a few months instead of the constant campaigning and fundraising we have now. The current system allows the Plutocrats to make regular payments to the politicians that they buy, that way if their politician says or does something they don't like the payments stop until they get back on track. I have seen this in action too many times which is why I constantly harp on this issue. It is the ruination of our once great country!

People only read the headlines, you know. So that's what they take away: doom and gloom rather than a temporary blip followed by strong recovery.

Unnamed of course. I have not seen any forecasts of "approaching 4% growth".

Goldman Sachs: Q2 GDP revised down to 3.4% from 3.8%; Q1 GDP revised down to -1.1% from -0.9%.
Barclays: Q2 GDP revised down to 2.9% from 3.0%
Macroeconomic Advisers: Q2 GDP unchanged at 3.9%; Q1 GDP revised down to -1.4% from -0.9%. "The data on trade through April were consistent with our previous forecasts for growth of exports and imports in the second quarter," the group said.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-downward-gdp-revisions-have-begun-2014-6#ixzz35fdEkk2k

Your quote is what analysts estimate, not actual growth. The past several years estimates have always been high, q1 a great example. They are hopes, not facts.

most of the 3% Q1 growth estimates were made before the bad weather. After Jan., it was pretty obvious that growth would be slow. We are now almost done with Q2, so estimates should be pretty accurate. There has been a lot of positive news in Q2, and GDP should be strong.

For example, Goldman Sachs estimated Q1 GDP at 1.5% into Q2. This is AFTER they knew the weather (which is the lamest excuse I have ever heard, can't believe people actually believe it). So estimates from after Q1 missed Q1 GDP by 4.5%. And now you're trying to claim that because Q2 is almost over estimates should be pretty accurate, even though they missed Q1 by 4.5% after it was over. Good luck trying to sell that. And even if GDP was somehow 3% in Q2 that would make the GDP for the first half of the year 0.

may you live in interesting times.

it really meaningless for the other 90%!