Posted on 12/01/2008 9:41:46 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
So what makes their word official?
Tradition.
No. He claimed the economy wasn’t as bad as he had thought it was. The MSM made a big Hoorah about how the economy bounced back to life when Clinton became the President. The recession if you will during G.H.W. Bush’s tenure was but a blip. Nothing as exaggerated as Clinton made it out to be. You might recall that the economy was already recovering before Clinton won the Presidency, and had it not been for Ross Perot, he more than likely wouldn’t have won.
The tax increases were all part of the typical Leftist scheme all along regardless. It’s going to happen with Obama as well. The Left cannot imagine a World without the Government controlling every breath we take, every move we make, and taxes are what they control us with.
The two quarters of negative growth is a standard and more objective standard. The reason this article is here is to take that albatross off Obama’s neck.
Too bad— i have placed it on his neck and its a good objective standard.
Obamamaniacs want the recession to now be as deep as possible so any hint of rebound can be theirs. That is understandable and again an important motive to this informaton.
All information is political.
I am not going to play along that this is all innocent fact.
I find it interesting that Christmas sales on Friday set a record with shopping up 7% from last year and millions more shoppers than last year but this does not matter.
I don’t think it is going to get worse. I think come Jan 20 the media will be pulling for Obama and troves of positive economic information will be dusted off and put on the national headlines as Obama manna from heaven. This will instill greater confidence and drive the economy forward.
If he does get tax increases put into effect and other regulatory constraints then the economy will slow precipitously again.
That will take about 8 months to materialize after he takes office.
Well, I just hope we don’t have a depression. Depressions depress me.
You are incorrect. Read here:
As the New York Times noted in February 1993, "... beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction."
On Feb. 15, 1993, just weeks after he was inaugurated, Clinton completed the course change in a national TV address, telling the nation, "I've worked harder than I've ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can't."
His excuse was two-fold. First, he "hadn't realized" just how bad the deficit was. Second, he believed the people wanted the new spending he had proposed during his campaign.
Clinton sought to defuse the political damage by promising to hit "the wealthy" harder. His Feb. 6, 1993, radio address told the nation he would "get rid of windfalls for the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of the American people to make a contribution," and that, "We're going to ask the most from those who have got the most and gave the least during the past dozen years."
Clinton blamed Washington politicians – prior presidents in particular – for supposedly concealing just how bad the federal deficit was, thereby justifying his reneging on his campaign promises.
Link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79431
It's my understanding that, at the longest, they last about eighteen months.
from the NBER list:
| Average, all cycles: 1854-2001 (32 cycles) 1854-1919 (16 cycles) 1919-1945 (6 cycles) 1945-2001 (10 cycles) |
17 22 18 10 |
|
Something else is that the average expansions are 38 to 57, depending on the time range, and this past one was 73 months.
Not only that, but unemployment is lower going into a recession than it is going into an expansion.
OK, so when unemployment peaks after the recession is over, maybe we won't be hearing the press complain about Obama's "jobless recovery for the rich". Just the same, falling trade deficit = less jobs.
Dianna, the discussion you are posting here by the NY Times is about the deficit, not the economy.
I remember the quote about the economy I’ve stated in my previous posting having heard him say it on TV at the time. My wife remembers it as well and his arrogance still gets her red in the face angry when she thinks about it.
I’ll try to find the quote for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.