Recession ending: GDP rises 3rd qtr

Unofficially is the KEY word here but what the heck, any good news is very welcome when it comes to the economy. Now on to other big ticket itmes please!

Although this is good news the employment picture remains grim. All this means is that we have finally bottomed after a steep decline, and begun a slow rise. At the same time the United States Government under Obama continues to run bigger and bigger budget deficits that are dwarfing those of the Bush Administration. I hope we are finally getting out of this big mess but the picture does not look pretty.

Rise in consumer spending? Really? Consumers are spending more? Not from the small businesses I've been talking to lately.
Also, unemployment numbers are going up. In technical speak, the recession may have ended just as economists predicted a year ago. The fact is, though, the economy is still very sick with no real cure still in sight.

Nobody takes these press releases about "preliminary estimates" seriously.

But what people SHOULD take seriously is today's AP story:

"Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

- A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees."

Yet another White House "mistake".....

It's amazing to me that anyone would claim we've pulled out of the recession when unemployment soars and all we've seen is government money prop up banking and wall street. In fact all the cash for clunker, cash for appliances, cash for houses, that is going on is just creating another series of bubbles. And given the current economic climate those bubbles won't last. Greed will overwhelm them and they will burst leaving yet another huge mess for gov to sweep in and say, "Let me save you."

The GOP has helped to end the recession! My friends, it was the decisive, courageous and steely resolve of the Republican party that lifted America back onto its feet in the 3rd quarter w/ our unwillingness to compromise America's future to Socialist experiments. Vote fer me dudes, I scored a 75K on Guitar Hero 3! And now back to my bro Michael Steele, YOU DA MAN!

It will be raining ponies and Bentleys any day now. Joe Biden told me so.

Remember back in 2005 when unemployment was 5%, and GDP was growing 3% a year? Back then the media was calling it the worst economy ever. Now unemployment is twice as high and it’s boom time city.

I actually agree with John D. here. We also have to remember that the economy is in the wrecked condition it is in because of the Bush administration and (mostly) Republican policies going all the way back to Ronald Reagan.

To Doug R: It seems that you only blamed everything on the Republicans forgot about the Clinton Administration in the 1990's that followed many of the Reagan Economic Policies and the big financial mess in the late 1970's under Jimmy Carter. And it was during the Clinton Years that mortgage requirements were relaxed allowing many people to buy homes that could Not Afford them, some with NO Money down and Interest Only payments. This eventually led to a huge real estate bubble and the biggest financial downturn since the Great Depression. The blame can be spread around on this economic collapse. I find it interesting to note that during the boom years of the Reagan, Clinton and part of the Bush Administrations the seeds for the eventual economic downturn were planted.

Posted by: Depot- Jim | October 29, 2009 11:47 AM
;
Not sure why you keep repeating this lie when it's been proven time and time again that the majority of default mortgages were from lenders who had little to NO regulation under the CRA you speak of. Try again.

Janet: It is not a lie. Thank Barney Frank and some of the others for this plus greed of the lenders. (Blame can nbe spread around for this none). At given periods of time as many as 35% of new mortgages were interest only. Then you had the adjustable low interest loans that could go up if interest rates went up. You also had people using the value of their homes like ATM machines. I always wondered where people were getting the money for real estate that kept going up in value at a rapid pace. It seems that some of those people did not have the money to purchase those homes. The seeds for potential disaster were planted. And when the bubble burst those people were in big time trouble.

It seems people here missed a BIG point. Its DC spending driving this up-tick! How long before it comes back to bite us? Some one must pay the bill at some time. We are on the hook for this spending.

Posted by: Depot- Jim | October 29, 2009 12:28 PM
;
It is soooo easy debating you rubes because I use facts and data to support my assertions. Not opinion, not FOX or GOP talking points. FACTS. I use FACTS.
;
"In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders’ CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis."
;
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/05/29/did-the-cra-cause-mortgage-market-crisis-nope-says-fed-report/

Janet, before you start making more accusations I need to inform you that I am Not a member of the GOP and I am not regular watcher Fox News. I do not think any one is going to argue with you about Sub Primers being a big part of the problem. You need to cool down and quit making false accusations about people you do not completely agree with..

Obama is God´s sent. Keep on doing the goo job boy!! Noise makers (GOP) can continue fooling their ass!!

Posted by: Depot- Jim | October 29, 2009 2:01 PM
;
This is not about me and you not agreeing. This is about YOU calling me a liar when I stated you were incorrect in claiming that Bill Clinton and policies from the 1990s caused the financial markets to meltdown. I used FACTS to show that the CRA you were referring to had little to no impact.

Poor Janet is such a simpleton.

Get a clue; it was government interference that promoted risky loans. And we all know how the left loves bigger government for social engineering.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/03/caps-faulty-fanniefreddie-facts/

Of course, Fannie and Freddie repackaged high risk loans and sold them to investors, creating more disaster.

And as far as CRA not being a big player in the meltdown according to percentage of loans in default is ludicrous.

Read the extensive history, arguments, threats, and problems with the government interfering in the home loan business. The precedent the program set along with 'meeting credit needs' and 'creative loans' was an impetus for all lenders to move beyond traditional practices.

But Janet, or is that Deranged and Demented Sue Powills, you are a liar. Truth is truth, dear.

FD,
But it was Wall St. that bundled them into toxic securities and brought down the world economy.

And the overwhelming majority of the bad loans were made by mortgage houses like Countrywide and Ameriquest that were outside the CRA rules governing regular banks. (The CRA blame has been repeatedly debunked, and I'm not doing your research for you, again.)

Those guys even referred to the 'Liars Loans' as they cranked out billions and billions in bad loans, then passed them on to Wall St. which then,,,, well you get it.

It was the money boys that landed us in this mess.

Also, quasi-criminal organizations, like Moody's, were anointing these toxic assets with their high rating holy water approvals, paid for by the issuing concerns, not the buyers.

CM,

The bundling of underlying assets has nothing to do with the collapse - it was the quality of the underlying assets that caused the collapse. Derivatives are used every day by businesses worldwide as a means to manage risk. They manage the risk well if and only if the assets underlying the derivatives are good assets.

Is the 3rd quarter GDP number showing true economic growth? ... I think not. Unfortunately, the number is skewed due to two major government bailouts of a sort. One being the Cash-for-Clunkers program, which was temporary. Although it indicated a growth in consumer spending (car cost less the gov. rebate), it came at the expense of reducing overstocked inventories ... not new car production. Major automobile manufacturers already were expereincing vastly reduced sales for months, creating large inventories of unsold cars. Selling off these models from the program's incentives did not cause a rise in production ... hence, no real growth in the industry. Ask yourself if this caused a rise in assembly-line manufacturing employment, or a rise in demand from auto parts suppliers. The same analogy can be found in the New-Home-Buyers incentives ... same deal. Helping unload the overbuilt inventory. New home production is down, not up. Is that a sign of growth? Yes, the GDP number is a real number ... but it is unfortunately very misleading.