We are in a recession - why can't rethugs grasp this concept?

[BushOut06]

The housing market has practically collapsed. The dollar is in a freefall. Unemployment is rising. Oil is at an all-time high, with the very real possibility of it doubling in price within a year. Retail stores are predicting a dismal holiday season.

Yet we have * and his merry band of followers proclaiming that the economy is chugging along as usual. How blind do they think people really are? It's one thing to try and convince people that something is otherwise. But when you're telling people that everything is just rosy while they're struggling to figure out how they're going to pay their now-doubled mortgage payments and increased fuel costs, it just isn't going to work!

[BOSSHOG]

1. I know ignorance is a conservative value

So is pride. No doubt bush supporters are too proud to admit they backed a big loser. Maybe failure is a conservative value as well since they obviously seem to be reveling in it.

[Bobbieo]

2. It hasn't hit thieir wallets yet and it may never affect some of our billionaires/

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Bottom line is: The Goopers don't give a shit.

Fine. Let's repeat 1932 and destroy their party in 2008. We'll render them insignificant for the next 50 years.

:kick:

[NightWatcher]

4. if they SAY we are in a recession, that means that it is their (bush's) fault

They will wait until a dem takes over in 2008 and then they will blame the dem and use that as the platform to run again in 2012 under the promises of favoring big business. Kinda like Newt did in congress with Bill in charge.

This is why I believe that the neocons want Hillary to win in 2008 and why they are using Faux Noise to help get this idea out. Give it to her in 2008 and then blame everything that is going wrong in the country and in the world on her so that they can run Jeb in 2012 and start anew.

[tridim]

7. It's the Janet Parshall defense..

[Atman]

5. Because if they acknowledge it, then the news has to report it.

And there is an election coming up. They'll lie about it until the final vote is cast in November. Then they'll take to blaming it all on the Democrats.

.

[tridim]

10. They're already blaming it on the Democrats..

Note that Nancy Pelosi was blamed last week by Faux Newz for the massive gas price increases since 2006.

[fenriswolf]

6. they wont see it untill it affects them hard in the pocket book

the reccesion is not in full swing yet and wont be untill we have to start making good on our debts. Of course a dem will be in office by them so the bad news will of course be the dem's fault. also thats no accident.

[AngryAmish]

8. Recession is a term of art

Usually it is negative real economic output for 2 quarters in a row. We are not there, yet.

[catzies]

11. If only more people saw your post, 'cause you're correct!

TWO NEGATIVE QUARTERS IN A ROW, people.

Or it's not a recession yet. By definition.

Not saying we won't get there, of course.

[BushOut06]

13. I'd say for the vast majority of American's we're already there

That might be a technical definition - but for too many Americans, it's simply semantics.

[AngryAmish]

17. We may be, but we can only know in retrospect

The data is measured quarterly and last quarter we had an increase. We will see what the current quarter brings.

As to your point, it is the opposite of semantics. When there is a term of art one should use them correctly. If Americans misuse the word then they should be reminded of the correct definition. There are plenty of other words that can be used to describe our economic condition. use them. Just use them correctly.

[Igel]

20. Remember the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001?

There was a lot of argumentation about the economy. Lots of claims of "talking the economy down", of claims that we were in a recession.

The technical definition was dusted off, properly so, and displayed for all to see. The recession did not begin under Clinton's watch, however much repubs wanted to say it was so. It started 3/01, too early for * to have much impact on it, but it didn't start when Clinton was in the Oval Office.

Now we are probably heading into a recession. Except this time the table labelled "partisan divide" has been reverse 180 degrees. Do we now say we're going to revise our lay opinion of late 2000? Do we say that we'll have on standard now, when it's politically expedient, and another standard at other times, when *that's* politically expedient? And doesn't that just make meaning a slave to political expediency? And if meaning is the only way we can express truth, it means the truth is forever subject to political expediency--now it's "true" that "recession" is the proper word whenever there's economic difficulty for a lot of people, now it's "true" that "recession" is the proper word only whenever there's 2 consecutive quarters of economic contraction--and we/they/others/somebody all get to decide which it is at any given time.

"We're in a recession" is then an utterance that is simultaneously true, false, possible, not appropriate, and misleading or a lie--all at the same time. And therefore, meaningless, but emotionally charged.

[Atman]

15. How do you know that?

Who told you? Do you have access to the actual data?

Just asking.

.

[AngryAmish]

Here

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: THIRD QUARTER 2007 (ADVANCE)


"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007,
according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter,
real GDP increased 3.8 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter "advance" estimates are based on source data that
are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3). The third-
quarter "preliminary" estimates, based on more comprehensive data, will be released on November 29,
2007."

Do I have my hands on the data? The data is public and I do not wish to wade through it. One has to trust that the gov't gets it right. It is subject to revision but 3.9% growth will not be revised to negative growth.

[Atman]

23. Sorry, it ended in .gov

Therefore, I don't believe it. I'll trust my own lying eyes instead. You cannot have monthly employment levels which consistently fall below break-even levels, largest debt in history, millions of American being evicted from their homes, soaring food and gas prices, manufacturing layoffs in the tens of thousands every month, and STILL get to claim there is record low unemployment and a "robust" economy.

Remember, people under BushCo get fired for telling the truth. They've re-jiggered the entire system. Oh, and here is the most telling paragraph...

"The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter "advance" estimates are based on source data that
are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3)."

Just like the unemployment numbers which are initially good or close-to-good, until they revise them downward next month when no one is looking.

QUESTION EVERYTHING.

BELIEVE NOTHING FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION.

.

[AngryAmish]

26. See, you described the economy without using the term recession

Just realize when one says "recession" it is a term of art to be used correctly. If we are not in a recession it does not mean everythng is sea shells and balloons.

BTW, the disclaimer you highlight above is the standard disclaimer that has been used ever since I have been aware of these things (80s) and probably for a lot longer.

[Atman]

27. And you ignored when the data began to go all positive

despite the record layoffs, outsourcing, soaring prices, everything normally associated with recession...it just vanished under Bush. POOF. He gave his buddies a brazillion dollars in tax cuts, they sent all our jobs overseas, Americans can't even afford gasoline, and yet...it's been flowers and bunnies and kittens ever since.

It funny how so many here will acknowledge that Bush and his handlers have lied about virtually everything he has ever touched, from his TANG record to his world record perch. But they wouldn't dare lie about this, right?

.

[BushOut06]

28. EXACTLY my point

Thanks for illustrating it better than I could. This administration puts out numbers that make the economy seem as if it's still moving ahead. Anyone with half a brain can look around and see that it's an outright LIE.

[Atman]

31. It amazes me how people like Amish can just look past this fact

It doesn't matter what happens...there could be 100,000 layoffs in a month, and gas prices could spike 80 cents, and unemployment numbers come in 50,000 short of break-even AGAIN, and yet, the indicators always improve. Always. It just keeps getting better and better. And Amish believes it because he saw it on web site ending in .gov.

:crazy:

.

[AngryAmish]

29. Alright, you are claiming the numbers are off. Then what are the real numbers?

And Congress is silent about this because...

[Atman]

35. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you fucking serious?!

You want ME to supply you with the real numbers? Here, let me look on my iPhone...must be a button there someplace. :rofl:

As for Congress being silent on this issue because...does that really require a response? Or maybe you're looking for them to be as outspoken as they've been on illegal wiretapping, waterboarding, Sibel Edmonds, Downing Street, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Sheesh. Sometimes these posts just write themselves!

.

[AngryAmish]

39. This is the way disagreements on economic data/issues get settled.

Person A: The numbers say x.

Person B: Your numbers are wrong.

Person A: Well, I obtained the numbers as I have done for years. Here is how.

Person B: This is why your numbers are wrong. It does not take into account of issue 1, issue 2 and so on. If these things are taken into account then the real number is y.

Just saying you are wrong does not cut it. Data is the thing.

I can say anything. In fact I do. It is my obligation to support my assertions. I am not alone in that obligation.

[BushOut06]

43. Do you deny the fact that this administration has lied about countless other subjects?

Remember when * denied any wireless wiretaps were taking place? What about all the lies leading up to Iraq? Mobile biological weapons labs? What about the secret prisons they've been lying about?

If this administration is going to lie so brazenly about one thing, then how can you trust ANYTHING that they bring up?

What makes you so willing to swallow their numbers?

[Atman]

44. Well, that's very convenient for you

when you know the only numbers we have to work from are the one's the government is giving us. All I have to go on is what is reported to me day in and day out on newscasts. The same newscasts who now are willing to report that we're NOT in a recession have been telling me for week upon week that the housing market is at it's worst since the Great Depression, that layoff and outsourcing are at record numbers, that food and fuel prices are soaring through the roof.

Sorry, it's all I have to go on to refute a report issued by the same government that tells me tax cuts for the 1% benefit me, that Iraq had WMD, that Scooter Libby and George Tenet are patriots, that 50,000 jobs indicates "growth." Sometimes you simply have to apply common sense to the equation, too, especially when a notorious bald-faced liar is feeding you the numbers.

.

[Maggie_May]

38. I hope that we do get some real data for everyone sake

the unemployment numbers haven't been correct they count all employed including part-time (yes we can live on that) and so many people have fallen out that those numbers are not correct. The inflation numbers not counting food and energy well we all know what that can do to a weeks pay after we pay that. Maybe if we do get some clean cut numbers we can fix this mess and get our house in order. I wish I could believe our government numbers but see way to many people trying to make ends meet.

[NewJeffCT]

22. Here is the data

2001 01 -0.4886
2001 02 1.2329
2001 03 -1.3978
2001 04 1.5857
2002 01 2.7442
2002 02 2.1948
2002 03 2.3775
2002 04 0.2023
2003 01 1.2019
2003 02 3.4691
2003 03 7.4865
2003 04 2.6532
2004 01 2.9596
2004 02 3.4817
2004 03 3.6022
2004 04 2.5481
2005 01 3.0728
2005 02 2.8127
2005 03 4.4620
2005 04 1.1936
2006 01 4.8204
2006 02 2.4423
2006 03 1.0655
2006 04 2.0909
2007 01 0.6016
2007 02 3.8213
2007 03 3.8959

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg

When you see the numbers turn negative for two straight quarters, it means there is an actual recession. Right now, Bernake is desparately trying to prevent a recession from happening before November of 2008 - partly by his recent lowering of interest rates. Of course, because he lowered rates, it has meant the dollar is tanking. That will likely leave the next president with a recession in either late 2008 and/or early 2009, coupled with even higher inflation.

[Atman]

24. Gosh, since Bush got his team intalled, it's been ALL POSITIVE

And yet, you don't question it.

Mmmmmkay.

.

[NewJeffCT]

30. It's very easy to explain

1) The media is not going to report that we're in a recession unless the actual numbers are negative, like they were twice in 2001. GE had record profits last year - why would the news outlets that they own report a bad economy? I'm sure the other big corporations that own 90% of the news outlets have had good years as well. Believe it or not, News Corp lost money a year or two back - however, I sure don't expect Fox to report a tanking economy until January of 2009.

2) Corporate profits have been skyrocketing to levels not seen since the Roaring 20s. That is a primary driver of the economic growth. Sure, it hasn't carried over into wage and job growth - but, if the media is swallowing the Bush line about fantastic job growth, do you really expect them to report that most of the population is in a recession? The reality is that wage growth is the worst we've seen since Hoover, and the only president worse than W on job growth since WW2 has been his daddy.

[Maggie_May]

18. Oh and you believe there numbers?

[AngryAmish]

19. I do believe "their" numbers

[Maggie_May]

21. How about the inflation numbers

inflation numbers that don't count food.

[Atman]

25. Just like Iraq death tolls which don't include being shot in the back of the head.

Or Bush unemployment numbers which don't count long-term unemployed.

It's a fucking shell game and a total con. Anyone who believes a word this corrupt, fascist administration is putting out hasn't been paying attention for the last seven years.

.

[AngryAmish]

46. Common inflation numbers include food and energy and don't

These numbers are publically available.

Listen carefully to the news reports. They describe core inflation (non-food and energy) and inflation which does include these things.

[Maggie_May]

49. Last reported

Consumers inflation overall figure and results - excluding food and energy - both match September gains as well as economists' forecasts.

[Maggie_May]

50. I read and found this interesting but still not being reported

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U increased 0.3 percent in
October, the same as in September. The index for energy advanced 1.4
percent in October, with the index for petroleum-based energy up 1.5
percent and the index for energy services, 1.3 percent. The food index
rose 0.3 percent in October. The index for food at home also rose 0.3
percent and the index for food away from home increased 0.2 percent. The
index for all items less food and energy advanced 0.2 percent in October.

Less than food and energy?

During the first ten months of 2007, the CPI-U rose at a 3.6 percent
seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). This compares with an increase of
2.5 percent for all of 2006. The index for energy, which increased 2.9
percent in 2006, advanced at a 12.3 percent SAAR in the first ten months
of 2007. Petroleum-based energy costs increased at a 20.6 percent annual
rate and charges for energy services rose at a 2.7 percent annual rate.
The food index has increased at a 5.5 percent rate thus far in 2007,
following a 2.1 percent rise for all of 2006. Excluding food and energy,
the CPI-U advanced at a 2.3 percent SAAR in the first ten months of 2007
after increasing 2.6 percent in 2006.

Less than food and energy

The index for eggs fell 1.3 percent in October, but have increased 42.2
percent during the last 12 months. The index for cereal and bakery
products increased 0.4 percent
The index for dairy products increased 0.2 percent in October
and has advanced 13.3 percent in the first ten months of 2007. Milk
prices were virtually unchanged in October, but have risen 19.3 percent
since the beginning of the year.

42% eggss Milk 19% in 11 months? Have your paycheck gone up to cover these high food and energy costs?

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Though you are technically correct

I am also going to bet that this recession will be deeper and longer... voodoo economics and all

Also, the numbers used to define one have been increasingly hidden

For example... care to tell me what is the M-3 number? It's no longer published

Care to tell me what the REAL infaltion is? You won't be able to... since things like I don't know MILK are not part of it any longer... and in some cases have not been since oh the Carter Administration.

So these days when they tell me that we are not.. I laugh

[bdamomma]

9. of course they will blame it on the Dems, do you ever see these

thugs point the finger at themselves.

I hope the repigs crash and burn, or have they?

[no_hypocrisy]

12. They'd only acknowledge it as fact if they could blame it on Clinton.

[madinmaryland]

14. If there is a recession, Clinton will be blamed.

The downturn has been caused by the Clinton's economic policies.

:wtf:

[B Calm]

16. The Bluebird of Happiness is everywhere.... according to the rw robots.

[Audio_Al]

47. Well, he's crapping on me. My stocks, retirement funds, and house values are down.

My grandson, almost 19, faces big debts for college.

I'd say we're in a recession but we're going to Florida in December to "enjoy" Disney World (Orlando) and Sanibel Island. My wife is trying to convince me to scrap the trip to Barcelona, Spain next October and go somewhere in the mid-West like Milwaukee, Wisconsin (we have friends there) or even Chicago (haven't spent time there).

Haven't done the research on the costs at Disney World. We will have two free one-day tickets due to one of those timeshare updates we take with Hilton.

My daughter says it will cost hundreds of dollars to get two kids and two grandkids into the parks. WTF?

What was the admission in 1971 when the park opened? My wife lived in Florida then but doesn't remember. I've gone there myself with my stepson and my nephew at different times after they graduated from high school.

Respectfully,

Audio Al

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Because we're not in a recession?

The economy can still grow despite lots of other problems. Trade deficits, housing downturn, inflation, unemployment... they're all separate from economic growth.

[treestar]

33. As long as they have theirs, everything is fine in their world

They are also sure they can get another job if they lose theirs, because they are so talented and special and hard working and virtuous. :sarcasm:

The only problem I have with them suffering the consequences is that if they do, so does everyone else.

Some of them are just lucky and have family money or feel that their investments are good enough to tide them over any rough patches and so that even then they will not be affected.

[Initech]

34. I believe it is a concept called "denial".

Every time I tell them about it, they always run the other way with their hands over their ears going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!"

[treestar]

40. Just like they do with global warming

As Nance Greggs said in her recent post, they just go "Let's pretend the economy is good and that there is no such thing as global warming."

The fundies figure the Rapture will save them from having to deal with it.

[Initech]

41. Yup.

In other words - "Move along! Nothing to see here!"

[Imagevision]

36. We are in a recession? - shhh! (it's bad for business)

[Atman]

42. 'Specially just before 'Black Friday.'

That term, btw, may take on a whole new meaning this year.

.

[Joanne98]

37. They grasp it they just don't care! They like it when people starve

It makes them feel good! Learn to hate them!

[Atman]

45. Okay, I just have to share this...it doesn't get much funnier (or sadder)

Posted verbatim (emphasis mine) from The Site Which Shall Not Be Named, by the stupidest poster there. This guy isn't even joking. I think he lives in a bubble, or in his mom's basement, with food and 24/7 Fox News provided to him for free...this is priceless if it weren't so freakin' sad to realize that there are people who actually think like this...

"When did the housing market fall apart? They're still building them like there is a tomorrow. Prices maybe down, but that is damn good for sales.

When did unemployment rise? It is still lower than it was during any day of the Clinton's White House occupation, and we heard nothing but how wonderful those higher number were then. What changed? I see nothing but "help wanted" everywhere I go. The Wal-Mart Distribution Center in Terrell, TX. has a semi-truck parked near Hwy. 80 and I-20 with a HUGE banner advertising warehouse jobs starting at $12.40 per hour with all benefits. The DUmmies should start a project (they LOVE projects) to match up all the unemployed people only they know about with all the jobs out there which need filling.

The dollar's "free fall" isn't a first and won't be the last. The dollar is still King Of The World. It won't change in any current DUmmie's lifetime.

This holiday shopping season is predicted to be about average - neither up or down from last year. It will be a good year for consumers. There will be lots of sales.

High oil prices? Yep, they are high. So is gasoline taxes. I have not heard one call to do away with gasoline taxes to reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline. I am hearing calls to question why in the hell we have let liberal enviro-idiots dictate our energy policy for the last thirty years - and questions about why we aren't drilling for oil.

I just got back from driving my granddaughter to her favorite Playland. I noticed there are many cars on the roads. Gasoline, apparently, is not so high in price it has folks changing their lifestyles. I didn't see any mule-drawn carts.

Where are people getting all this money???? Hmmmmmmmmm?????"

:wow:

.