Are we or Are we not in a recession?

[AllieBaba]

I love this. First you all claimed kicker checks wouldn't affect the economy at all...and then when they do, you say it doesn't count.

 

[AllieBaba]

*stamping feet*

We want a recession, darn it!

 

[Paulie]

I love this. First you all claimed kicker checks wouldn't affect the economy at all...and then when they do, you say it doesn't count.

I never said it wouldn't affect the economy, personally. I always maintained that it was, number one, a bad idea to begin with, and number two, it would provide false growth. As in, saying that a loan from the bank increases your overall worth.

How do you borrow someone else's money and think it's going to increase YOUR economy? You're spreading money around that eventually has to be paid back, with interest on top of it. That wasn't our money, and we never should have been given it.

But I suppose it's good enough for most people, being as how most people wouldn't look any farther than to simply think it's "free money".

I wonder how much of the profit made from it was offest by lost dollar value, and high energy costs...

And yes Baba, I actually DO want a recession. I want one because it's the only way to properly cleanse the market. If you were a REAL conservative, you'd already understand that. You're economically socialist based on much of what you post around here on the subject, and you don't seem to realize it.

 

[AllieBaba]

I do understand.

However, that's not the discussion. The discussion is whether or not we're in a recession. And we aren't.

 

[Paulie]

I do understand.

However, that's not the discussion. The discussion is whether or not we're in a recession. And we aren't.

We aren't when analyzed using doctored up, skewed statistics. In every other way, we are.

We should have avoided the extra 400-some-odd billion dollars that has been borrowed to try and "save" us from a recession that was more than necessary to let happen. If it makes you feel better to say we aren't simply because government numbers technically show that we aren't, then I say whatever helps you sleep better at night. We'll be paying the price for what was done to avoid a recession by skewed definitions, and it'll probably be worse than it would have been if it was left alone. And worse yet, it will probably be our children who are paying for it the most. And they had no say in this at all. That's pretty sad, when it was done simply so that people like you can say "we're not in a recession".

 

[AllieBaba]

OMG, another conspiracy.

 

[AllieBaba]

Is everything you don't like a conspiracy?

 

[AllieBaba]

Am I conspiring right now?

 

[Paulie]

how was what I said a conspiracy theory?

The numbers are skewed. Unemployment stats don't take into consideration people whose benefits run out, or who typically work off the books, or who live off govenrment checks. GDP doesn't take into consideration debt and inflation. Consumer spending doesn't take into consideration previous debt, and again, inflation.

Was it the part where I said it was fixed so people like you could say it's not happening? It basically was, wasn't it? It was avoided so we didn't have to officialy state that we are in a recession. Why else would we temporarily avoid it through intervention? It's still going to have repercussions down the road, to include most likely a recession ANYWAY, or possibly worse.

 

[AllieBaba]

Still, there's no recession now.

 

[AllieBaba]

And there's always one down the road a ways.

 

[Paulie]

Still, there's no recession now.

I'm challenging that, by challenging the skewed numbers used to make the claim. When you use REAL numbers, there's probably no way to claim there's no recession. The numbers you use, although lacking in depth, are just good enough to make you feel better.

You're no conservative, Baba. You're a wanna-be, who picks a couple pet issues to run with so you can claim it online. You're in the center, at best. And you lean left economically. THAT much has been shining through over the past few months. You are overjoyed at being able to say there's no recession, when the tactics used to be able to avoid having to report numbers that would otherwise indicate a recession, are about as socialistic as it gets. If you were really a conservative, you'd be exasperated at the efforts used to avoid having to report a recession, rather than exclaiming over and over that there ISN'T one, thanks to the socialism used to provide you with the ability to do so.

You're a typical fair-weather conservative. You probably wouldn't have the stomach to deal with the recession we SHOULD be reporting, had we not intervened in a way that would make Marx proud.

DAMN that must sting.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think there's a conspiracy to make me look like a non-con.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm challenging that, by challenging the skewed numbers used to make the claim. When you use REAL numbers, there's probably no way to claim there's no recession. The numbers you use, although lacking in depth, are just good enough to make you feel better.

You're no conservative, Baba. You're a wanna-be, who picks a couple pet issues to run with so you can claim it online. You're in the center, at best. And you lean left economically. THAT much has been shining through over the past few months. You are overjoyed at being able to say there's no recession, when the tactics used to be able to avoid having to report numbers that would otherwise indicate a recession, are about as socialistic as it gets. If you were really a conservative, you'd be exasperated at the efforts used to avoid having to report a recession, rather than exclaiming over and over that there ISN'T one, thanks to the socialism used to provide you with the ability to do so.

You're a typical fair-weather conservative. You probably wouldn't have the stomach to deal with the recession we SHOULD be reporting, had we not intervened in a way that would make Marx proud.

DAMN that must sting.

You really are mentally challenged, you know. But harmless, at least.

 

[Paulie]

You really are mentally challenged, you know. But harmless, at least.

Such an educated rebuttal. You really know how to put me right in my place, girl.

 

[AllieBaba]

'tis true.

 

[Chris]

What?! - The U.S. Economy Actually
Shrank in 2007?

As I said, the GDP report gave dollar bears a hidden surprise. Let me explain...

First off, the second quarter GDP numbers were slightly lower than economists expected (1.9% vs. expectations of 2.3%). That's not such a big deal considering we all know growth is slowing this year.

Here's what's more interesting: The report also revised the fourth quarter 2007 GDP numbers lower. In other words, the report confirmed the U.S. economy actually shrank in the fourth quarter of 2007. That definitely caught everyone's attention.

You see, last year the Commerce Department reported the U.S. GDP for fourth quarter ‘07 was a 0.6% gain. At the time, the news media used the figure as proof that we weren't really in a recession. Now the Commerce Department has come clean and admitted the true number.

According to the latest report, the world's largest economy contracted at a .2% annual pace in the fourth quarter of last year.

This number now confirms the general picture of weakness which both Chuck Butler and I have been discussing here over the last year. And in spite of the temporary boost from tax rebates, I think the recession in the U.S. will only deepen.

Untitled Document

 

[AllieBaba]

Omg, you went and MISSED the recession!

Tragedy!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Unemployment stats don't take into consideration people whose benefits run out

This is actually a lie. That is not how unemployment is determined. So the numbers aren't skewed by your big ugly conspiracy.

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Seriously people why make yourself look like an ass by not using Google. It only takes ten seconds. Just do the search and quit talking out your ass.

 

[Zoomie1980]

This is actually a lie. That is not how unemployment is determined. So the numbers aren't skewed by your big ugly conspiracy.



How the Government Measures Unemployment

Seriously people why make yourself look like an ass by not using Google. It only takes ten seconds. Just do the search and quit talking out your ass.

Can't let facts get in the way. There is a reason economists claim 4.0-4.5% unemployment in the US really mean FULL employment. Because they DO count the chronically unemployed on those numbers. In any western Democracy 4-5% of the eligable working population will CHOOSE not to work. But they are counted in most unemployment statistics. 5% is widely considered a good equilibrium number. Under than and business begins to get stressed with some labor SHORTAGES. At 4% business begins to hit labor CRISIS stage.