Recession ended in June 2009

lomiller said:
I guess the stimulus didn't "fail" afterall...
Click to expand...

Only in the reality-based world.

On Planet Wingnut, the stimulus is the only reason the recession lasted beyond January, 2009.

Well, that and the fact that the President was an atheist Muslim Communist Reptoid from Dimension XIX.
 
joobz said:
Unfortunately, I fear that's where the elections are held this year.
Click to expand...

I'm scared. How do I get out of this madhouse? Isn't there somewhere I can go to escape the wing-nuts and let them deal with the repercussions of their own actions?

I'm getting tired of paying for other people's mistakes.
 
Problem is unemployment is the LAST thing to go down after a recession.
This will not help matters in the election for the Dems. It would not have helped the GOP either if they were in power. Unemployment is the yardstick by which the vast majority of voters judge the economy .
 
So some line on some graph turned from "sharply down" to "moderately up" in June 2009? So what? People remember what it was like

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk in June 2009. It flatly sucked. It flatly sucks right now.
 
drkitten said:
Only in the reality-based world.

On Planet Wingnut, the stimulus is the only reason the recession lasted beyond January, 2009.

Well, that and the fact that the President was an atheist Muslim Communist Reptoid from Dimension XIX.
Click to expand...

On planet Wingnut, the stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 8.5%
Oh wait, that was this world :rolleyes:

I, for one, am thrilled with Recovery Summertm, although we don't hear that term much anymore. Perhaps it has something to do with the recent rise in unemployment and anemic job growth that can't even keep up with the population? Or perhaps it's because GDP growth was revised downward to 1.6%?

So if you don't count unemployment (and really, it's just a minor thing) or GDP (another menaingless statistic) the stimulus has worked brilliantly!
 
U.S. GDP statistics are as cooked as the books at Enron were.

Do you people actually believe this depression is over? If so, might I interest you in a bridge or two?
 
It depends on whether you define a recession based on the relative value of GDP over a period of time, or use some other definition. What's yours?
 
gnome said:
It depends on whether you define a recession based on the relative value of GDP over a period of time, or use some other definition. What's yours?
Click to expand...

Nearly 10% UNEMPLOYMENT (which is probably really 15-20% or a measely 40 MILLION people). Plus there are probably another 40-80 MILLION UNDEREMPLOYED (hey, like me).

Times are great
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
So some line on some graph turned from "sharply down" to "moderately up" in June 2009? So what? People remember what it was like

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk in June 2009. It flatly sucked. It flatly sucks right now.
Click to expand...

Man, that turned out wrong. My apologies. I take full responsibility: Clearly I'm too old for this texting stuff.

Anyway, I think that no matter how technically true it is, pimping this factoid will backfire horribly on Democrats come November. The more people point at the NBER's graph or chart or whatever-it-is and say "see! Our plan worked!", the more Americans are going to think to themselves, "no it didn't".

They're going to wonder, if the recession's been over for a year and a half, why aren't banks lending? Why aren't houses selling? Why aren't employers employing? And why do we care what a bunch of out-of-touch academic smarty men think?

It won't help Democrats much that the President himself is a smarty-man academic who has yet to personally experience any effects of the recession at all. How many rounds of golf has he canceled due to the financial uncertainty his household faces? Oh, right: He's already played more golf than Bush played in his entire 8 years.

I think, for most Americans, the recession isn't over until unemployment drops back below 7% or so. Anything higher than that, and no amount of insisting "but it looks good on paper!" will make you look like anything other than a gigantic douchebag.
 
Puppycow said:
Some of the comments under that article are really horrible. Such as:
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem; It's exactly what most of the posters here would be saying to each other, if only the Mods didn't make at least a half-hearted attempt at ruling this board with an iron fist.

Indeed, I'm sure that at least half this forum's membership regularly post exactly such things on other boards, when they get frustrated with the restraint imposed here.

Besides, what's a little political rhetoric between friends?
 
theprestige said:
Man, that turned out wrong. My apologies. I take full responsibility: Clearly I'm too old for this texting stuff.

Anyway, I think that no matter how technically true it is, pimping this factoid will backfire horribly on Democrats come November. The more people point at the NBER's graph or chart or whatever-it-is and say "see! Our plan worked!", the more Americans are going to think to themselves, "no it didn't".

They're going to wonder, if the recession's been over for a year and a half, why aren't banks lending? Why aren't houses selling? Why aren't employers employing? And why do we care what a bunch of out-of-touch academic smarty men think?

It won't help Democrats much that the President himself is a smarty-man academic who has yet to personally experience any effects of the recession at all. How many rounds of golf has he canceled due to the financial uncertainty his household faces? Oh, right: He's already played more golf than Bush played in his entire 8 years.

I think, for most Americans, the recession isn't over until unemployment drops back below 7% or so. Anything higher than that, and no amount of insisting "but it looks good on paper!" will make you look like anything other than a gigantic douchebag.
Click to expand...

This ^^
 
A lot of people busily re-defining "recession" here.

It has nothing to do with unemployment.
 
Malerin said:
On planet Wingnut, the stimulus was supposed to cap unemployment at 8.5%
Oh wait, that was this world :rolleyes:

I, for one, am thrilled with Recovery Summertm, although we don't hear that term much anymore. Perhaps it has something to do with the recent rise in unemployment and anemic job growth that can't even keep up with the population? Or perhaps it's because GDP growth was revised downward to 1.6%?

So if you don't count unemployment (and really, it's just a minor thing) or GDP (another menaingless statistic) the stimulus has worked brilliantly!
Click to expand...

Source for the 8.5% number?

The only one I'm aware is from January '09, before the stimulus bill was even written up and they were only talking about what it should do. Certainly before the hundreds of compromises they did to make the stimulus weaker.

But I must say I'm impressed in your (or someone's) ability to predict with 100% accuracy the baseline 6 months out, yet somehow mess up the calculation of stimulus' impact on the baseline.

And as pointed out, definition of recession is only about the GDP rates. That's not to stay things aren't bad.
 
lionking said:
A lot of people busily re-defining "recession" here.

It has nothing to do with unemployment.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Unemployment/underemployment is a 'side-effect' of a recession/depression. 'Nothing to do with' is incorrect. There is plenty of money out there (esp. now after all of those stimuluses [sic]). Not much of it is leaving the wealthy, banks, corporations for the benefit of local governments and citizens. Unemployment/underemployment also feeds the recession as it lowers the amount of money being spent on goods by consumers who cannot afford them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom