Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

REALLY Weird B.S. From "Focus on the Family!"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mumon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 05:53 PM
Original message
REALLY Weird B.S. From "Focus on the Family!"
Edited on Mon Aug-02-04 05:59 PM by Kanzeon
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0033088.cfm

Revised Stats May Mean 2001 Recession Didn't Happen


Newly revised Commerce Department figures suggest that there may never have been a 2001 recession. The new view of the past few years is tied to a broad revision of the government's numbers on the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to Tim Kane, who crunches those numbers at The Heritage Foundation.

It may seem an arcane exercise, but it can affect things like, well, elections. If so, the best question about these new stats is: Who do they favor? Here are the thoughts of several experts, starting with Curt Knorr, who is with Ronald Blue and Associates.



"Newly revised Commerce Department figures show that you never really did lose your job, and that Enron didn't go belly up, and let's face it, we've turned a corner!..."

Really, how much BS do they expect people to believe?

But then again their target demo is creationists...

Of course, if they're right, than there was no "Clinton recession," either...

On edit...oh, they're just lying again...

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business/article/0,1406,KNS_376_3078753,00.html

WASHINGTON - The government released revised figures for the gross domestic product Friday that showed that, under one standard definition of a recession, the 2001 downturn doesn't qualify. ...

Private economists who reviewed the new data, however, said they still believe the country did suffer a recession that year, although an even milder one in GDP terms than previously believed.

The old data ... fit the often-cited definition of a recession as a downturn in economic activity represented by at least two consecutive quarters of falling GDP (and) also matched the period in which the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of recessions, said the country was in a slump, which it dated as starting in March 2001 and ending in November of that year


So bascially the Commerce Department's been lying, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-04 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Look at the bright side
They can't call it the "Clinton recession" anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC