The 3% rate is the annualized growth rate, that is, what the annual growth rate would be if this quarter were repeated four times.

It's a solid number -- a strong number. In my own mind 3% is the baseline for a "strong" rate of growth. The economy can grow more, but 3% is where the "strong" range begins.

Even the AP is forced to concede this is "strong" growth.

But note that immediately after conceding that the second quarter showed "surprising" (that means "experts predicted the opposite") "strong" growth, they immediately begin undermining that fact, talking up foreigners' and leftists' "concerns" about the economy.

And then they keep talking about the 0.5% contraction in the first quarter, talking about the old news of the first quarter more than the new news of the second quarter.

The U.S. economy expanded at a surprising 3% annual pace from April through June, bouncing back at least temporarily from a first-quarter drop that reflected disruptions from President Donald Trump's trade wars.

Still, details of the report suggested that U.S. consumers and businesses are wary about the economic uncertainty arising from Trump's radical campaign to restructure the American economy by slapping big taxes -- tariffs -- on imports from around the world.

Weird, huh, that the only time that the left admits that taxes slow economic growth is when Trump imposes tariffs? They deny that Democrat tax hikes slow growth. In fact, they've been screaming about Trump's tax cuts without ever once conceding that lower taxes spur growth.

"Headline numbers are hiding the economy's true performance, which is slowing as tariffs take a bite out of activity," Nationwide chief economist Kathy Bostjancic wrote.

The "experts" keep predicting rising inflation and slowing economic growth which never actually arrives, and of course the Steno Pool Media repeats these Democrat talking points.

America gross domestic product -- the nation's output of goods and services --rebounded after falling at a 0.5% clip from January through March, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. The first-quarter drop, the first retreat of the U.S. economy in three years, was mainly caused by a surge in imports -- which are subtracted from GDP -- as businesses scrambled to bring in foreign goods ahead of Trump's tariffs.
Boy you almost forget that the new GDP number is 3.0% because they won't stop talking about the brief Biden-era 0.5% contraction six months ago.

Check this out:

The bounceback was expected but its strength was a surprise: Economists had forecast 2% growth from April through June.

The "experts" keep failing in their predictions, so let's keep making the "experts'" predictions the main topic of conversation, rather than the 3% growth.

The New York Times takes the "let's keep talking about the first quarter even though we have the second quarter's data in now" tactic to the next level.

The Times doesn't want to acknowledge that the GDP grew by a strong 3%, so they average it with the first quarter number -- still suffering under Biden, and with Trump's policies not even close to enacted yet -- to talk about the first half-year's average GDP growth.

I think this is the first time in economic reporting history that anyone has ever descended to this level of hackery -- let's ignore the actual new numbers to focus laser-like on numbers from six months ago.

One claim these hacks are making is that the GDP growth isn't really that strong because a drop in imports boosts domestic GDP. So, they're saying, we just stopped importing foreign goods, and this sparked domestic production, so it doesn't really "count."

Two things, though:

1, the whole Trump economic plan is built on the idea of taxing foreign imports to reduce the levels of imports to spark domestic economic production. So the left is saying that even though Trump's plan is working as designed, it doesn't count, because they're neoliberal c*nts who want to offshore all production to foreign countries.

2, the only reason we had a "contraction" in the first quarter is because businesses overbought foreign goods to buy them before Trump's tariffs kicked in, and increasing imports reduces the GDP. So while they're saying that the 3% growth isn't "really real" because it's based on falling imports, they continue to insist that the first quarter's "contraction" is really real even though that "contraction" was largely an artifact of HIGHER imports.

When trade effects reduce GDP, highlight the lower GDP and pretend it's all really real. But when trade effects increase GDP, highlight the trade effects and denigrate strong 3% growth as not really real at all.

Chuck Schumer insisted that Biden presided over a Miracle Economy, and now says that Trump's strong 3% growth is "just a mirage" because people are worried about foreign imports and importing illegal foreign labor.

You're not going to believe this, but the entire leftwing propaganda media is repeating Chuck Schumer's talking points:

Democrat partisan hack Jerome Powell admits the economy is "strong" and that inflation is only "slightly" above the 2% rate the Fed considers idea and the "target" rate, but still refuses to reduce interest rates from the high 4.5% level.

I was going to say this yesterday, so I want credit for the prediction I thought but did not yet write: I don't mind if Powell keeps interest rates up because I'm anticipating a Reagan-level BOOM and a booming economy often results in inflation.

So I don't think Trump needs a lower inflation rate. I think the BOOM is coming, and, in fact, already begun. And maybe the higher inflation rates will dampen the natural price increases due to a roaring economy.

Trump's already negotiated several trillions of dollars in foreign investment and guaranteed purchases. That's a lot of fresh money coming into the economy. Do we need additional stimulus? I don't think we do.

In addition, Trump's closed deals with our biggest trading partners, the EU and Japan, and so there is now a stable platform for business investment going forward. (We still have to negotiate with Canada, India, China, etc.) This ends a lot of the uncertainty that Trump began his term with. I think Trump's tariff war is like Reagan and Volcker greatly increasing interest rates to wring out the Carter inflation -- there is early pain, yes, but in service of future plenty.

I'm not an economist, of course, so this is just the halfway-informed speculation of a layman. If you know better, let me know.