By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer – 1 min ago

"WASHINGTON – The government lowered its estimate of how much the economy grew in the first quarter of the year, noting that consumers spent less than it previously thought."


The above is the AP "lead" from Friday's story about the downward revision of second quarter GDP numbers (the byline being left because I think the corrupt liars of the AP deserve to be identified by name). Notice how INCOMPETENT the quoted lead paragraph is. The facts are not there. Here is a more correct lead (yes, I am more competent than ANYONE in the despicable AP as a journalist): "The Commerce Department revised downward its estimate of second quarter GDP growth from 3.2% to 2.7%--a downward revision of ..15% in the economy's second quarter growth (.5 divided by 3.2)."The parenthetical is just to show you how the 15% is arrived at. It gets far worse, as the AP again showed itself to be composed of nothing but corrupt liars.


Yes, the mainstream media pretty much ignored this significant proof of a weak, and weakening, economy. The next sentence should have read: "2.7% is less than half of the 5.6% GDP growth in the previous quarter, and represents a significant slowing of the recovery." That is NOT how the AP went on, although the APO did, at least, have the shame to admit that the 2.7% number shows a weak recovery


What the lying hypocrites at the AP--who did NOT write stories this way on Bush economic numbers--did go on to say was that the 2.7% represented "healthy" growth "in normal times", although pretty weak for a recovery. This was all in thr process of DISGUISING the significant downward revision by rehashing the same story that accompanied the original--wrong--3.2% estimate (several straight quarters of growth, etc.). The significan SLOWING in growth, and in the recovery, was pretty much submerged as much as possible.


The AP reference to 2.7% as "healthy" growth, "in normal times", was an OUTRIGHT LIE. That is a consistent habit of the AP--lying outright (not a matter of opinion). Yep. I am calling the writer(s) named above liars, and they objectively are liars. Growth under 3% is NOT "healthy" growth in normal times. 3.2% might be regarded as on the low end of "healthy", but 2.7% is WEAK for normal times. The AP simply made up their lying statement. Yes, if the economy had been in danger of "overheating" (lol), 2.7% might be regarded as ACCEPTABLE (although worrisome in terms of too much deceleration)) in returning the economy to a sustainable growth rate. That is not the case here, and even the AP can't quite claim it is. If we were truly in normal times, and growing about 3.5% a quarter, 2.7% would NOT be "healthy". It would be extremely concerning--on the edge of dangerous. In a recovery, this deceleration in growth--growth totally from government spending--is truly DANGEROUS and UNACCEPTABLE.


Doubt me? Let me go back to the summer of 2008, when most people agree we were already in a recession disguised by the FAILED Democrat/Bush "stimulus" of that summer. George Bush was President, although economic policy was already being determined by the Democratic Congress's elected in 20006 (along with Bush--a Big Government guy himself--joining in their policy with Paulson, a Geitner clone). The GDP GREW for both of the first two quarters of 2008--I believe 1.1% in lthe second quarter ending June 30, 2008. Democrats, and the mainstream media, dismissed that and assserted we were in a recession anyway. For once, they were probably right, even though it did not fit the classic definition of a recession. Nor was the "recession" yet severe. That would not occur until the Bush/Democrat/Paulson PANIC in the fall of 2008. /What would have occurred without the panic bailouts to save Goldman Sachs and Wall Street will never be known, but it could hardly have been worse--especially approaching 2 years later--than what actually occurred.


You see the point here. Just how much worse is 1.1% (following a previous year of substantial growth and an ALL-TIME Dow high in October of 2007) than a "growth" of 2.7% juiced by even more government spending (on housing subsidies, "cash for clunkers", and thousands of other wasteful things)?


Nope. That 2.7% revised number was truly BAD news of FAILURE on the economy, and the corrupt agenda of the mainstream media is the only reason it was not obvious (as it still was to anyone paying attention). If Bush were still President, the headlines would have SCREAMED about how BAD the economy is. Yes, if you accept that the mainstream media represents merely a POLITICAL faction in this country regarding itself as part of the left, you can say that this kind of DECEPTION is normal POLITICS (limke Rush Limbaugh on the other side, although I don't think Limbaugh actually lies as often as the despicable AP). But these hypocrites still PRETEND to be "journalists". That is the biggest LIE of all


P.S. You may have noticed somewhat more negative--or which could be construed as negative--references on my part to Rush Limbaugh (who I still admire, and think is right much more than he is wrong). I have always been willing to disagree with Limbaugh--usually to be proven right in those disagreements. However, I blame my recent, pretty much unconscious, negativity on a sense of BETRAYAL. I am sure you are aware that Limbaugh just got married again, after PROMISING he would not do that. This is something like his fourth marriage, or is it only 3? (Dirty Harry reference). I, on the other hand, married only once. That is because I--unlike Limbaugh--realized that I am not cut out for marriage with an actual woman (nuts, all of them, and especially any who would consider marrying me, to analogize to Groucho Marx saying he would not join any club who would have him as a member). This is to be distinguished from a FANTASY WOMAN, who can be anything you want her to be.. You can see again that I am smarter than Rush Limbaugh.