After duly noting that the percentage of big company CEOs planning to add workers and purchase additional capital equipment over the next six months had declined (from 42% to 36% and from 48% to 43%, respectively), Rugaber misrepresented reality when he wrote the following:
The gloomier outlook follows a sharp pullback in hiring over the past two months, which has raised concerns that the economy could be slumping after a fast start.
So 2.2% annualized GDP growth, which is how the first quarter's initial GDP report came in, is now a "fast start"? It's amazing how far they'll lower the bar to make the economy resulting from Dear Leader's policies look acceptable, isn't it?
You want "fast," Chris? Here's "fast" (from the 1980s), and how it compares to "slow" (which is now):
I don't even need to bother to look to see if anyone at AP or anyone else in the establishment press characterized any reported growth between 2.2% and 3% during the Bush 43 Era as "fast," because I'm not in the mood to find a tiny needle which might not even be there in a very, very large haystack.
Rugaber might defend himself by saying he was talking about job growth. My response, based on the above: Nice try, pal; no sale -- and that's even before noting how many of the jobs during the current alleged recovery have been part-time and temporary in nature.
By historical standards, the first quarter of 2012 did not have a "fast start." It was better than most of the mediocre results in the previous ten post-recession quarters, but wasn't "fast." Period.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.