>>I take it you agreed with all the other points. :)
>
>Nope.
>Too many moving targets there.


Indirectly, you've validated the point. A person can't look at a GDP number, or an unemployment rate, without also looking at related data.

And in other post, JB mentioned where job growth has been this year - in the lower paying/part-time area. Ironically, in December, there were a great number of full time jobs (for once). But for that one piece of good news, you had too much offset in the form of those under 55 dropping out of the labor force and the # of long term unemployed holding constant.

Given the current economy, as counterintuitive as this seems - if unemployment went up, and the labor participation more or less held steady, it could actually be a GOOD thing.

And I won't drop this one - that 5% GDP is a whopper of a lie, right up there with "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". Never thought the administration would play a shell game with ACA payments as a means to manipulate GDP growth. I underestimated how far they'll go to provide numbers for their base.