Look at the most recent GDP report from the U.S. government:
Bueau of Economic Analysis 2Q2019 Estimate (7/26/2019)
The highest number in the "2Q2019 %Change" column is the 15.9% growth in Federal non-defense spending.
This article is almost ten years old but it explains the issue perfectly:
The money quote (the highlighted item is my own):
Over the last two quarters, US real GDP grew at an annualized rate of 5.6% and 3.2% respectively. Wow. Over the last 3 and half years, US real GDP grew a total of about 1.5%. Not bad for the worst economy since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the US government had to spend an incredible $4.1 trillion to produce this $200 billion in growth. Without this new government spending, real GDP would have shrunk 30% (if nothing else had changed). How should we think about this fiscal stimulus? Is it more accurate to say that GDP has grown 1.5% or shrunk 30%? I believe the latter is more accurate and will demonstrate why.
You can be damn sure every astute investors looks at these numbers, even if the U.S. government publishes figures on "non-farm productivity" that may be correct but do not paint a complete picture. These figures explain why we are seeing interest rate CUTS even though unemployment is effectively almost 0%.
That article is NINE years old! You’re telling me investors are skittish NOW, when non governmental GDP and factory productivity is on the rise? Really?