Friday, October 26, 2012

Obama Fails on Economy: GDP Growth Worst Since July, 2009 (Media Lies Continue)

It was annunced as "god" (by most of mainstream media) news today taht the INITIAL ESTIMATE of GDP growth for the thrid quarter (ending Septem=mber 30) was 2%. It was actaully terrible news--again showing that the supposed "drop in the unempoloyment rate for September, based on a FICTIONAL increase of 873,000 jobs, ws TOTAL FICTION.  Most of the media headlines failed to tell you many things, including the fact that 2012 had the WORST three quarters since 2008--2009: the WORST 3 quarters since Obama became President.  Nope. The first THREE quarters of 2009 were NOT bad--only th efirst 2 quarters. The second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama policies could DERAIL the "snap back" recovery, had a sTRONG growth rate (much higher than 2%).  Not so for 2012.

ALL three quarters of 2012 had GDP "growth" of  2% (or so), or LESS. That has not hhappened in any single year since 2008.  It is the WORST year of the Obama Presidency, in terms of PERSISTENT slow GDP numbers (although 2009 was a bad overall YEAR, as the contraction in the first half offset the inital recovery in the second half).  The reason that most of the mainstream media "headlin ed" that today's anemic report of third quarter GDP "rowth" was "good news" was that it was supposedly "up" from the 1.3% "growth" of the second quarter. That is a bald-faced LIE. 

"But, Skip, numbers don't lie.'  Numbers may not lie, if looked at correctly, but "jounalists" rouutinesly do.  First, even some mainstream media sources reported that the ONLY reason that the third quarter GDP was as "high" as 2% (a bad number, even if it were not misleading) was HIGHER DEFENSE SPENDING.  Did this concentratin of GOVERNMENT SPENDING in the thrid quarter have anything to do with the elecitn.  A cynic might assume so.  But, whatever the reason, 1/3 of the "growth" in GDP came from higher DEFESE SPENDING (lol).  "Lol" because we are facing thta "fiscal cliff" BECAUSE OF OBAMA AND THE GOP j(see article earlier this week), calling for automatic "cuts" in defense spending.  The rise in defense spending, regardless of whether those 'automatic cuts" take place, will NOT coninue at the third quarter pace.  General Dynamics, and other companies relying on defense spending, have either sent out letters WARNING of layoffs because of lower defense spending, or have only not done so because the Labor Depment has tired to BRIBE and BLACKMAIL them into not doing so (so much for the Labor Department being non-political-see future article based on informatin from one of my brothers, who wroks for General Dynamis in defense).  I digres--not rally.  Without this boost from incrfeased defense spending, which will not continue, GDP would have 'grown" only 1.3%--exactly the sAME as the third quarter. That does not even take into account the MAASIVE deficit spending by the Federal Government, and the MASSIVE "stimulus" from Baiut Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve.  No. ALL of the supposed "growth is ARTIFICIAL, as we make a future real recovery impossible.  But it is even worse than that, as far as MEDIA LIES are concerned.

Look, again, at yesteray's article about the WEEKLY LIES on each Thursday's reported weekly number of new unemployment claims.  The media ALWAYS "compares" each Thursday's UNREVISED number of new claims with the REVISED number from the previus week.  This is an egregius, indefeinsible LIE, especiallly when the REVISIN is always in one directin (higher, whcih means mroe lost jobs).  Believe it or not, the media did the SAME LIE with regard to today's GDP numberf.  Today's reported GDP number was only the FIRST LOOK (initial estimate).  The number will be REVISED at least TWICE, and maybe more times, in the comng months.  Yet, the media comparted today's UNREVISED number with the TWICE REVISED number for the second quarter. What was the INITIAL NUMBER (comparing apples to apples) for the seoncd quarter?  You guessed it: right at 2% (withoiut the massive increase in defense spending for the second quarter, and without the massive new QE3 from the Federal Reserve).  It was the LAST REVISON of the second quarter GDP, from less than a month ago, that DROOPPED the estimated GDP "growth" for the second quarter to 1.3% from 1.8%.  Wil the same thing happpen with today's 2% two months from now?  It is more than possible, although revisions in GDP do not go one directin as consistently as the "one directin" revisonis in new unemplyment claims.  However,, that is offset by this;  Do you really believe that the Labor Department would UNDERESTIMATE the GDP "growth" for THIS third quarter?  Get real.  In any event, it is a bald-faced LIE for our dishonest media to compare an UNREVISED nummber with a REVISED number.  And the media also LIES by not calling the intial number what it is:  an initial ESTIMATE, whcih may be revised SUBSTANTIALLY. 

It all doesn't matter much.  GDP "growth" for the first 3 quarters of 202 has been TERRIBLE:  as stated, the worst since the first half of 2009.  This means Obama has FAILED, and that the economy is NOT going in the right directin.  And, as stated, to the extent the GDP numbers are misleading, it is because they are TOO HIGH.  There is no way they are understated, with so much government effort to INFLATE the numbers (higher spending, deficit spending, Federal Reserve money printing, and all of the rest).

As readers of thes blog know, I am not confident at alll that Romney is going to improve thigns as to government domination of the economy.  I only endorsed Romney because of Behghazi, and because Obama treated the KILLING of 4 Americans as a POLITICAL EVENT.  Boy, was I ever right about that, as new informatin comes out every day.  So I have been REINFORCED in my endoresement of Romney, just because it will be SHAMEFUL (shame on US) if Obmaa again becomes President of the United States. 

Still, Romney cannot be WORSE than Obama. ObamaCare aone will make 2012 look GOOD.. Romney's problem is that he turly is gonig to inherit a MESS from Obama.  I stil find it amazing that Obama insists HE "inherited" an econmic mess from BUSH.  Yes, Bush--who I disowned in 2006--was PART of it.  But SO WAS OBAMA.  Obama was part of a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in Congress, from the beginnnig of 2007 to the end of 2008, who did NOTHING to stop the 2008 economic collapse.  It can accurately be stated that Obama "inherited" HIS 'mess" from OBAMA (as well as Bush). Obama was THERE.  That is the consistent theme from Obama, even on the Benghazi terrorist attack:  Obama acts like he is NOT THERE, with the power to DO SOMETHING. Obama has never even CLAIMED that anything he PROPOSED in 20007-2008 would have helped avoid the 2008 econmic collapse.  How could he?  Obma PROPOSED NOTHING in Congress, and pretty much voted for the Bernanke/Paulson (Democratr favorite)/Bush/Democrat policies that did NOTHING to help avoid the economic collapse.  n fact, as I have previusly stated, the DIFFERENCE between a STRONG economy (5% unemplyment) in 2007, and an econmic collapse, was a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS.  That was what CHANGED in January of 2007.  It amazes me that the GOP refuses to make this point: mainly, I think, becaue it calls attentin tot he fact that THEY WERE NO BETTER.  But Romney can righty claim he was NOT part of the Wahsingon that broujght us to RUIN, while Obama WAS.  Beats me why he won't say that. No courage (as he has not had much on Libya). Again, I am not voting for Romney because I have changed my mind abut him. I am voting for Romney because I would be ASHAMED to be any part of Obama again being President of the Unitged States. And it is ture that there is some CHANCE that Romney will be better than Obama: NO chance that OBAMA will be better than Obama (especially with no worry about re-electin, and ObamaCare looming).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: