JUST yesterday this administration was touting U.S. Grew ‘gradually’ Last Month.This is according to a collection of anecdotes released by the Federal Reserve.
Their talking point fabrication:
The so-called Beige Book said activity expanded gradually in July and early August across most regions and sectors, compared to the previous assessment of “modest to moderate” growth. The report, based on information collected on or before Aug. 20, showed 6 of the 12 Fed districts with “modest” growth and 3 with “moderate” growth. The previous Beige Book showed 3 districts growing at a “modest” pace and 5 growing at a “moderate” race.
Expect them to talk circles around their brethren next week that the economy is growing and the conservatives are lying. So according to the Alinsky model Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up, with different tactics and actions, and Rule 11: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
From Heritage who knows economics better then the socialist party of entitlements shows the lies:
This update from the Department of Commerce on economic activity in the second quarter shows that the economy grew at an anemic 1.7 percent annual rate. This follows a nearly equally weak first quarter growth rate of 2.0 percent.
How weak is this? In terms of economic output, the current recovery is the weakest of any since 1945: Total output is only 6.8 percent higher than when the recession ended in 2009, which was about 12 quarters ago. Compare that to the other really big post-war recession: 1981. After 12 quarters, economic output stood 18.5 percent higher than the end of that recession. Even the really slow recovery from the 2001 recession outdoes the current one: By 12 quarters following the end of the 2001 recession, economic output was 8.9 percent higher.
The weak spots in the current recovery stand out in today’s economic growth report. The Bureau of Economic Analysis traces the sluggish growth rate to slowdowns in the spending of households and businesses and shrinking inventories.
To show how they
twist words, Lie, the difference for the Fed and Obama lies in a ‘single’ word. Remember ‘Is?’ In this instance the Fed is using the word ‘ gradually’. Real meaning IS slightly . They play with the words moderate and modest. The real formula: anemic 1.7 percent annual rate. Then true to Alinsky, the ‘truth’ is hidden in this remark by the Commerce Department : that growth was marginally better than its initial estimate of 1.5 percent.
So what this honestly all comes down to is a comparison chart and the Fed is delivering their version to those of Stepford mentality by taking a negative and turning it into a false positive. They liken ‘some improvement in growth’ to the economy is turning around and if Obama gets his second term he will prove it. NOT!
Most believe the economy will keep growing at a subpar rate of around 2 percent. Growth at or below 2 percent is not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which was 8.3 percent in July. Most expect the unemployment rate to stay above 8 percent for the rest of this year.
A weak economy and high unemployment could hurt President Barack Obama re-election chances and bolster Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign.
The report on economic growth measures the gross domestic output, the country’s total output of goods and services. It measures everything from the purchase of restaurant meals to construction of highways and bridges. The report Wednesday was the government’s second look at GDP for the spring quarter. There will be a third and final estimate of second quarter GDP released next month.
Government spending, which has been a drag on growth for the past two years, contracted again in the second quarter. But the decline at an annual rate of 0.9 percent was less than the initial estimated drop of 1.4 percent. That reflected a much smaller dip in defense spending than first estimated.
The growth of our economy is not JUST contingent on the GDP. As Business Insider reports today ‘Everyone Is Ignoring A Sign Of US Economic Decline We Haven’t Seen In 60 Years’:
UBS economist Drew Matus was on Bloomberg TV with Tom Keene this morning discussing the U.S. economy – and one rarely-discussed trend in particular that is somewhat alarming.
Matus told Bloomberg TV that the decline of the U.S. capital stock is a bad sign:
I would say that one of the things that people have generally ignored is that the U.S. capital stock is in decline. This is the first time post-war we’ve ever seen it. We don’t know what the repercussions are because we have nothing in history to look back on and say, “Hey, last time it did this, this is what followed on it.”
I would submit to you, though, that it’s probably nothing good.
Here is a chart showing the growth of the U.S. capital stock from 1947 to 2011. Note the lone dip at the end:
And here is a chart of the annual growth of the capital stock. Note the only time it’s ever been negative since 1947:
As evidenced in the chart, the capital stock is growing at nowhere near average rates we’ve seen in the past.
So, we’re looking so far at a probable decline again in the capital stock in 2012, or at least very slow growth, if there is any.
So, use these ‘facts’ when dealing with those of the mind who do not have a clue on wordplay. You JUST may get a vote over to our side. ~ JP