Ed Gillespie said (ABC) that * inherited a recession. not true, right?

[buycitgo]

by strict definition, didn't the recession start in March?

the economy was slowing down, true, but the recession, IIRC, didn't start until the creature was entrenched.

recession involves a certain period of negative GDP growth, doesn't it?

if I'm right, Gillespie just told a HUGE lie on national TV, and neither Stephie or Will bothered to question him on this.

he continues to spew his bile as I type, giving free reign to dump on each of the top dem candidates, without rejoinder from the two simps

now....on recession, from Slate

Bush concluded 2002 with the same dishonesty that defined his economic policy throughout the year—a mendacity that ranged from denying the tax cut had anything to do with the re-emergence of the deficit to arguing that the terrorism insurance bill would create 300,000 construction jobs.

In fact, there is no evidence that the economy was in recession when President Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2001. Yes, growth was slowing, and the longest expansion in American history was running out of steam. But the U.S. economy did not go into recession until Bush's presidency, according to both of the most accepted definitions.

One definition of recession is two consecutive quarters with a declining gross domestic product. By this measure, the economy was explicitly not in recession when Bush took the oath of office on Jan. 20.

According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew (albeit slowly) in both the third quarter and the fourth quarter of 2000, by 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. GDP did decline in the first three quarters of 2001. So Bush would have been accurate in saying that "when I was inaugurated, the economy was three weeks into the first of three consecutive quarters in which GDP declined."

the article goes on into specifics about what represents recession, and how, even if dumbo is clueless as to what these specifics mean, his adVISERS surely do, and they know for sure that this particular steamer is one easily contradicted

http://slate.msn.com/id/2076134/

I just can't stand how they allow the likes of Gillespie to sit there and lie their asses off, over and over, then go hammer and tong at the dems

bllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[GURUving]

1. * talked the economy down frequently during the campaign

He wanted the economy to tank, and I'm sure his corporate buddies were helping as much as possible, but it didn't occur until, as I understand it officially, until March.

[alcuno]

19. Don't forget that Greenspan refused to lower rates.

* sure was talking down the economy in those days. The official recession began in March of 2001 and ended in December 2001; it officiall ended TWO YEARS AGO. Where are the jobs?

[Lefty48197]

2. Congratulations. You've caught the Republicans in a lie

That's what they do.

[buycitgo]

4. very well aware of that...

my point, made, perhaps too obliquely, is that the MEDIA let them get away with almost ALL their lies, all the time


I KNOW that's what they do. I call a certain radio show (metamedia analysis) almost every weekend and make the point that the media just let the pugs tell their story unencumbered.

so are you being sarcastic, or what?

[demolifer2004]

3. Depends

It depends on whether he meant the technical definition of a recession, which does involve negative GDP growth, or was just referring to the general economic downtown, which began in 2000 with the stock market dropping.

[buycitgo]

7. did you see above edit?

the slate article linked deals with that

bush's advisors knew then and KNOW now that the recession, by all accepted professional economic measures, didn't start until dumbo took office

obviously, it would've happened if Gore had taken his rightful place

the POINT is that they LIED hugely about inheriting a recession

the POINT is they lie all the time, even when they don't have to.

another thing, why didn't Greenspan do then what he's done since the squid took office?

had he begun lowering interest rates in the summer, the blow/extent of the following recession would most likely have been less severe

why? dunno, as he didn't lower them in 92, either.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Google "March 2001" and "recession"

and limit the search to only www.foxnews.com

The results may shock you. Repeatedly, the 'Pukes own propaganda department said that the recession began in March 2001. After Junior announced his first "tax cut" for the non taxpaying rich.

[buycitgo]

8. did you see the above edit?

I did google, and included the slate story, as it basically covers that ground

thanks for the tip, though

I googled something similar, came up with that

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Try using google and search for the following....

When did Greenspan begin raising interest rates in response to inflationary tendencies that no other analyst saw?

Hint: Search the Federal Reserve for their 1999 and 2000 data and observe the rise in interest rates BEFORE the so-called 2000 election, and then observe the rapid decrease in interest rates AFTER the NeoCons took over in December 2000.

When did Big Oil begin raising the cost of gasoline and heating oil?

Hint: Again, search the Net for info on gasoline prices BEFORE December 2000 and AFTER December 2000.

IMHO, those two actions were launched in late 1999 and early 2000 by those friendly to the NeoCon agenda to give the appearance of an economy going into recession. But they miscalculated and ended up actually creating a recession, one that was accelerated by the events of 911. Additionally, and again IMHO, the recession continues to this day despite the lapdog media's insistence that the economy is doing well.

No economy is "doing well" when people in the lower to mid-level income levels continue to lose jobs, lose health insurance, go bankrupt, and lose homes by foreclosure.

[mrdmk]

32. Hint, when did California the 7th largest economy have

the electricity turned-off

Once in 1999 in September, and Mr. Bill Clinton made an executive order to Enron to stay out of the California energy market.

More times than I can count in 2001 as soon as Mr. Bush Jr. lifted Mr. Clinton executive order for Enron to stay out of the California energy market.

Some independent radio stations did try to alert the public that the energy problem was a hoax, but were shot down by the mainstream media with no regard to facts. This is the same problem we are having with media and the California government at this time. It will go on until we get the FCC to reform their policies.

Bush did take down the 7th largest economy in the world with 3 months of electrical disruption. California had 10 billion dollars in the bank and had to spend that and then some on Texas energy companies who were in on the scam with Enron. This whole problem started with a governer named Mr. Pete Wilson who now works in the Bush Jr. administration. Now California is supposedly looking for money and cutting cost left and right with the Florida government doing our books. I will give you a name of the Florida government Mr. Jeb Bush.

[welshTerrier2]

6. it doesn't really matter ...

the recession technically began in march, 2001 during bush's "occupancy" of the oval office ... but i don't think dems or repubs are likely to get much mileage from focussing on this question ...

the far more important issue is that bush has done nothing to help the economy ... his tax cuts coupled with low interest rates created a short-term economic stimulus but that was last year's news ... the budget deficit is far too great to provide more, or permanent, tax cuts ...

and business people know that interest rates can't stay down forever if deficits like the current ones continue ... so, the deal is, bush has no bullets left in his gun ... he can't lower taxes again and the big consumer push from mortgage refi's is over and done ... it's tragic for the american people but bush has no second act to stimulate the economy ... consumer confidence may hold up for a few more months but the "recovery" ain't going to happen on bush's watch ... bush doesn't have a clue what to do next ... and that's why he'll have no second term ...

[buycitgo]

9. I realize that, and thanks for the analysis, but my point should be......

it's the media's complete disregard for the LIES the pugs constantly employ to further their lousy rotten stinking goals.

they let them get away with almost everything, and this little brick is just another piece in the wall of lies, with which they seek to innure themselves from any glance into the reality of their kleptocratic approach to "governing"

[finn]

10. gillespie has eaten to much

ratshit and it is decaying his shit for brains. the recession started in march 2001 after shrub went around screaming we were in a recession. it belongs to the ratshit eaters repug thugs as all shit does.

[buycitgo]

11. NOW yer talkin'

made me snort, then LOL

couldn't agree more!

I REALLY can't stand that screw-nosed POS

and he DOES have a screwnose.

ever see Jon Voight's first movie?

the villain, played by a canadian standup comic, whose name escapes me at the moment, was called ScrewNose, and his nose was a big metal SCREW!

Gillespie's nose has always reminded me of that guy

is that gratuitous enough?

[Killarney]

12. Gillispie's second lie of the week

and the media gobbles it up and does not contend. *shaking head*

[buycitgo]

13. Second? you didn't see the interview, did you?

he lied/distorted his ass off about the candidates.....

dismissing Edwards, for example, as NOT a populist candidate.....just a "trial lawyer" (uhhh, Ed, who STOLE the election for you, pal?), conveniently neglecting to mention that Edwards made his living SUING bigass companies who routinely injured, screwed little people, whose only recourse now is the courts, and which recourse the neofascists DEARLY want to eliminate.

too many lies to keep track of; wish I'd taped it, but that would be a real pain, having to listen to that weasel twice

[Lefty48197]

14. Here's the definitive source for info regarding economic recessions:

The info is compiled by the National Bureau of Economimc Research. Not that they say the recession started in March 2001. They also say it ended in November 2001. That's why you've heard the phrase, "jobless recovery" uttered by Democrats so often lately.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

[buycitgo]

17. thanks.....the slate article in header mentions them, with an "explainer"

for NBER's info
http://slate.msn.com/id/1007498/



NBER recession dating site

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

these are both in the slate header story

the point I meant to stress, again, is that the pugs LIE And LIE and LIE, then get away with it. the recession story SOUND so good, but it's NOT TRUE, and the media refuse to CALL them on it

the DEMS should go after Gillespie, and explain WHY it's important that the recession started under Bush: NOT because it started under Bush, but that the pugs LIED about it!

Remember....."it wasn't about the SEX, it was about the LIES?"

dems are just no good at attacking......course that's because the media immediately tosses the pugmeme about being "too negative; too angry" back at them; the public hears it repeated over and over, forgetting that it was carefully calculate FURY over the evil, lying, dissembling Clinton that enabled theme to marshall their forces against WJC, then carrying that anger into the selection of 2000.

did you hear ANY comment in the media over pug anger? wasn't Bush's campaign almost entirely negative, and very often on a personal level?

did the press HOUND the Bush campaign the way they are the dems on thwat topic? that's the major meme at this point, don't you think?

Bush "Hatred"

Dem Anger

Dem Negativity

[Lefty48197]

22. Here's how to fight back:

Who was Gillespie lying to? Stephanopolous? If so, then it was George who fucked up by not calling Gillespie on the lie. George definately knows the facts concerning the start of the recession. If it was he who didn't challenge the lie, then he should be bombarded with emails demanding to know WHY he didn't challenge the lie. Include the link.
But before we start bombing George, was it him?

[buycitgo]

24. it was both will and stephie who sat there

allowing him to spew his garbage, unassailed

I blame Steph, of course, as Will doesn't count

I'me leaving town shortly, but will definitely email him

forgot to mention that in header...meant to

thanks for the reminder

I've given up on him, pretty much, though, too.

he's MUCH harder on dems than pugs, usually

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. And where did they get the data to feed their formula?

Think about that for a while.

As a former technical recruiter, I can tell you without any hesitation whatsoever that this is the worst of four recessions I have personally seen since the 1970s.

The most recent recession began in December 2000 as a direct result of interest rates being raised by Greenspan (supposedly in response to inflation that only he could see), and the rapid rise in the cost of gasoline and heating oils at that point in time. Clients who used to call me daily for help filling their positions stopped calling in December 2000, and have yet to call again.

Almost immediately after the presidential selection in December 2000, Greenspan began lowering rates rapidly in hopes of regenerating the booming Clinton economy. Unfortunately, Greenspan's tinkering in 1999 and 2000 had gone too far in 2000.

Additionally, there is no friggin' way the recession ended in November 2000. 911 had just taken place in September, and no jobs were being offered to anyone for the next eight to nine months.

Baloney.

[Lefty48197]

21. Should have said...

NOTE that they say the recession started in March 2001.
(editing time has expired!)

[TahitiNut]

15. Bush* is all about 'inheritance' and nothing about 'accomplishment'.

The pathological narcissist has never accomplished anything on his own in his total waste of a life -- why should this be any different?

He inherited a slowdown and turned it into a recession.
He inherited a surplus and turned it into record-setting deficits.
He inherited people at work and destroyed 10 million jobs.

If it were only about inheritance, why have a new president? Why not keep it in trust? "Trust" is something else he inherited ... and never earned.

[buycitgo]

20. mahalo!

very well and succinctly put

I'm getting SO furious reading/seeing all this crap today.


endless tales of Dem bashing/pug lying w/o consequence

glad I'm going to see Richard Lewis tonight

he's REALLY against the junta, and has said some pretty incindiary things lately. I saw him last summer and he got going on SOME rant about the chimp, then had to step back and take a breath, even 'apoligizing' to the audience, but they egged him on, begged him to keep going!

[progressivebydesign]

23. Tied to consumer confidence..

When Bush "took" office. Consumer confidence plummeted, after we enjoyed incredibly high confidence under Clinton's administration. It has continued to dive.. now, with another election and hope looming it is starting to crawl back up. Consumer confidence is the first, albeit simple, measure of the economy. When it dove in early 2001, the economy went with it. There was no damn recession to inherit. They're liars. They're just lying because no one calls them on it. The economy will rebound when Bush is out of office, and we have a Democrat again (if Bush doesn't steal the election).

[ComerPerro]

25. Yeah, but don't be so suprised

This is one of their favorite talking points.

When someone attacks them for the shit economy, they blame Clinton and call it an "inherited recession". And if that weren't enough, to explain why they weren't able to recover, they blame 9/11.

[buycitgo]

26. good point, BUT

dems/gasbaggers MUST call them immediately on the LIE about the recession, then go on the offensive about how pugs LIE about everything: WMDs, AlQaeda, Condi v. planes into building ignorance, Gore/Love Canal, etc., but put it into soundbite sized snips

something that STICKS, like all the crap they used on Gore

remember, tie them to the LIES

put them on the deFENsive

it's how they frame the debate.

just don't LET them do it anymore

[ComerPerro]

30. That would be great, but

Who will do this?

[alfredo]

27. Only one sector was having trouble, Tech. The recession didn't really

pick up steam until the phony energy crisis is the midwest. Remember Jeffords put the dems in charge of the senate, they called for an investigation of price gouging. Like magic enough oil appeared, prices dropped, but the recession was in full force by then. Even Saudi Arabia announced it would increase supply to help. Where were they before the Dems regained control?


Also, look at the timing of recessions since 1960. You will see that a recession started in the first year of every republican president. The recessions that occurred during Democratic presidents were shorter lived. what does a recession do to the bargaining power of Labor?

[NoMoreRedInk]

28. I'd be surprised if you could find one economist in the world....

who would tell you, with a straight face, that the recession wouldn't have happened if Clinton had stayed in office or if Al Gore was elected.

The recession was going to happen no matter who took office in January 2001.

So, technically, I agree that we were not in recession when * took office, but everything was already in place and there was nothing anybody in the world could do about it.

[kentuck]

29. Actually, Bush and Cheney talked the country into a recession in...

August, Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec previous to being sworn in. They had a direct influence on diminishing consumer confidence.

[fishguy]

31. I agree with that sel-fulfilling prophecy