With America mired in debt, define ‘recovery’.

The London Telegraph’s Louise Armitstead uses the paper’s daily email briefing to report as follows: America is braced for $85bn of automatic budget cuts, starting today, as Congress adjourned for the weekend in deadlock.  President Barack Obama will now be forced to sign an order to start cutting the deficit by 10%, and warned that the US economy will be hurt. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the uncertainty will hit global growth. 

BUT (and there’s always a but) Louise adds:

‘….the strength of the US recovery has been underscored by results from Freddie Mac: The bailed-out mortgage lender, has reported $11bn of annual profits for 2012 – its biggest ever gain. Last year Freddie posted losses of $5.3bn….’

Er, um….where to start?

Some questions to ask here:

1. Are a tiny growth pattern coupled with manipulated payroll data alongside trillions of Dollars in QE worthy of being termed ‘a recovery’?

2. Where is this recovery likely to result in overseas earnings that reduce the US deficit?

3. Is a biggest-ever Freddie Mac gain worth a nickel if fully a third of it followed a $5.3bn loss?

4. Will US taxpayers ever see a repayment of the monies they poured into Freddie Mac, plus the losses that then followed?

5. Where is the correlation between Freddie Mac health and the underscoring of American recovery?

This is what the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in the States three days ago:

‘Chief among the recommendations is the elimination of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their replacement by  a completely government-owned entity called the Public Guarantor.’

Sorry, it must be me: I’m obviously confused. Or this is superficial MSM journalism, one of the two. You choose.

Earlier at The Slog: Is the Bundesbank bunga-bungered?