[Kerrigan]

Despite the liberal press's bandying about of the word "recession" non stop in this election cycle, the US economy has not actually experienced another recession since the dot-com crash, even by a loose definition of the word. And yet, liberal op-eds penned by journalists with no formal economic training continue to warn of some looming Great Depression II.

In the quarter before last, US GDP growth was almost exactly average, and now it is at 3.3%, almost twice the average rate of growth for the US. So why do I constantly hear the word recession on the lips of liberals? Could it be because their party benefits from this distortion of economic fact?

[Doofy]

The US is still in the Great Depression. It's just covered this fact up a little with a bit of borrowing.

[BRussell]

By "liberal press" I guess you mean "John McCain?"

And you don't know that the US economy "has never actually been in a recession." We don't know for sure until afterwards. And it's not defined by negative GDP growth either - a recession is defined by a host of factors. Most economists believe that we've probably been in a recession.

[Kerrigan]

How could we not know if we have been in a recession? The latest figures are out and it indicates very positive growth. The recession would have to have happened extremely recently and in contrast to the recent growth.

[smacintush]

The definition of recession is determined by the impression you are trying to give I guess…

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

How could we not know if we have been in a recession? The latest figures are out and it indicates very positive growth. The recession would have to have happened extremely recently and in contrast to the recent growth.

Think about it. How would you know when a recession has started? Economic data are collected during a period, those data are examined, and economists (in this case, the NBER) look at the data to see if there was a recession. Unless they base their judgments on predictions rather than actual data, they wouldn't know if we were in a recession until after the data from the period are fully in. In the case of recessions, the judgment is based on a host of economic data, not just GDP growth, and it isn't determined for many months after the recession has occurred. That's why most economists now are saying we've probably been in a recession - they usually can't say we are in one or we aren't until after it's over.

[nonhuman]

If the only way to know whether or not we're in a 'recession' is to analyze the economic data after the fact then I posit that a 'recession' is not something important or efficatious enough for us to waste our time worrying about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

if the only way to know whether or not we're in a 'recession' is to analyze the economic data after the fact then i posit that a 'recession' is not something important or efficatious enough for us to waste our time worrying about.

qft.

[besson3c]

Whether or not we are in a recession is not something that is terribly interesting to me. What is true, however, is that we are spending way more than our GDP, and we are driving up a massive debt at a very unsustainable and bothersome rate. We have reason to be alarmed, and reasoned to be worried. We are not in a doomsday scenario today, but this government spending of money we don't have at the rate that we are doing so must stop.

[Helmling]

Perhaps if average Americans feel as though we're in a recession and yet we still have economic growth sufficient to prevent the period from being classified as a recession then we might be witnessing something new. Nobody thought stagflation was possible until the 80's.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

One has to ask though, at what point does it boil down to the average American feeling as though we're in a recession, based on constantly being told we're in a recession?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

One has to ask though, at what point does it boil down to the average American feeling as though we're in a recession, based on constantly being told we're in a recession?

I think the gas crunch has left a lot of Americans stinging. I hardly have the economic gravitas to propose that my hunch we may be witnessing a new phenomenon has any explanatory power. I do know, though, that I've read the income disparity we've kicked around a lot the last few weeks in various discussions comes with a long, but steady drop in real income over the last generation. Right now I have Obama's $2,000 decrease in average American income in mind as well. As I said in another thread, I don't know the origin of that figure, but if Obama said it, he must have some economist willing to back him up on it, which suggests there's at least some truth to the drop in average American income even if it turns out not to be that pronounced.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

One has to ask though, at what point does it boil down to the average American feeling as though we're in a recession, based on constantly being told we're in a recession?

Bingo.

The media and the left wants us to be in a recession in order to try and make Bush look bad in regards to the economy, to help the Democrats. There are currently economic challenges that have to be addressed, but all signs point to a growing economy.

Back during our last recession during the Clinton administration, the media and the left insisted that we were doing fine and any suggestion that the alarming economic numbers pointed toward a recession was an example of republicans "talking down the economy". When Dick Cheney pointed out the dismal state of our economic affairs back during Bush's first campaign, he was castigated for pointing out the fact that the economy really wasn't growing. It wasn't until after Clinton left office that they all had to admit that YES, we were in a recessionary state during the last year he was in office.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...ney/index.html

It's all politics.

[besson3c]

How can the economy be growing with such huge debt? Have you looked at those numbers stupendousman?

[Dork.]

It all depends on how economy is defined.
(That may sound like I'm weaseling out of the question, but I'm an Engineer: "It Depends" is a perfectly valid answer.)

I'm no economist, but most definitions of GDP I've seen define it in terms of production, and the dollar value of it. For instance, Wikipedia defines it thusly:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Notice how Debt isn't in there at all? Nor should it be, because debt is just a tool to use to increase production. But since this definition does not include it, a $100 GDP with no debt will look worse than a $150 GDP with $150 in debt. Eventually, of course, paying down the debt will result in less money available to invest in production, which will drag the GDP down. But GDP is a measure of current production, so that's why debt does not appear.

IMHO, this is why we get such misleading information about the economy right now. We have two wars going on, and gas prices are much higher than people are used to*. All that serves to inflate GDP, since we're spending more and more money on bombs which we then proceed to blow up in Iraq, and on filling up the same gas tank that we filled up for less money years ago. To boot, we are borrowing much of the money that is being used to make these transactions!

On a pure dollar basis, we might be producing more now than we did last year or eight years ago, which would make the GDP metric go up. But how much of this increase is benefiting folks who are not in the oil or defense industries? And if it's being financed on debt, will the responsibility for paying off the debt fall only to those who benefitted from it? Probably not. It will fall to all of us, even though the same share of the benefits of the GDP increase do not fall to all of us.

Do you see now why numbers don't tell the whole story? And that people who are concerned about the economy aren't just whining?



* = Gas prices are a bit lower now than they were a few months ago, and on an inflation-adjusted basis gas prices don't seem quite as astronomical. But still, they spiked in the last few years, and most people 's wages haven't risen to account for it, so it's still a problem for the economy.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

One has to ask though, at what point does it boil down to the average American feeling as though we're in a recession, based on constantly being told we're in a recession?

Why don't you ask some average Americans? Over 50% of working Americans make $50K a year and under, so why don't you ask them what it's like to pay almost $4/gallon for gas, or watch their wages stagnate year after year, or watch while their ability to afford education for their children drifts away, or hope that their car makes it another year and pray they have enough to buy another one when it doesn't, or hope they don't have a medical emergency, after their employer cuts their benefits (or eliminates them altogether), while their employer gets a pay raise for eliminating their job, and moves to a bigger house? It's all well to sit inside of one's ivory tower and denigrate the sniveling peasants, isn't it? Of course, it's all their fault anyway, isn't it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Why don't you ask some average Americans? Over 50% of working Americans make $50K a year and under, so why don't you ask them what it's like to pay almost $4/gallon for gas, or watch their wages stagnate year after year, or watch while their ability to afford education for their children drifts away, or hope that their car makes it another year and pray they have enough to buy another one when it doesn't, or hope they don't have a medical emergency, after their employer cuts their benefits (or eliminates them altogether), while their employer gets a pay raise for eliminating their job, and moves to a bigger house? It's all well to sit inside of one's ivory tower and denigrate the sniveling peasants, isn't it? Of course, it's all their fault anyway, isn't it?

$4/gallon gas? Boo hoo. Welcome to the real world, instead of the debt-created fantasy land you've been living in since the end of WWII. You rode high on that debt for a long, long time and now it's time to pay the piper.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

$4/gallon gas? Boo hoo. Welcome to the real world, instead of the debt-created fantasy land you've been living in since the end of WWII. You rode high on that debt for a long, long time and now it's time to pay the piper.

QFT.

Damn, Doof, you and I need to hang out some time.

Before I feel sorry for a "struggling middle class American," I need to check out their personal responsibility in regard to their money.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Why don't you ask some average Americans? Over 50% of working Americans make $50K a year and under, so why don't you ask them what it's like to pay almost $4/gallon for gas, or watch their wages stagnate year after year, or watch while their ability to afford education for their children drifts away, or hope that their car makes it another year and pray they have enough to buy another one when it doesn't, or hope they don't have a medical emergency, after their employer cuts their benefits (or eliminates them altogether), while their employer gets a pay raise for eliminating their job, and moves to a bigger house? It's all well to sit inside of one's ivory tower and denigrate the sniveling peasants, isn't it? Of course, it's all their fault anyway, isn't it?

Yeah. It's a sign of how screwed up our economic reporting is that measures like GDP and the DJI are reported as the most important economic measures. If wages go up? The WSJ reports that investors get the jitters! How terrible, unemployment is down and wages are up!

Average wages are no higher than they were 8 years ago. That's what matters to people.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Why don't you ask some average Americans? Over 50% of working Americans make $50K a year and under, so why don't you ask them what it's like to pay almost $4/gallon for gas, or watch their wages stagnate year after year, or watch while their ability to afford education for their children drifts away, or hope that their car makes it another year and pray they have enough to buy another one when it doesn't, or hope they don't have a medical emergency, after their employer cuts their benefits (or eliminates them altogether), while their employer gets a pay raise for eliminating their job, and moves to a bigger house? It's all well to sit inside of one's ivory tower and denigrate the sniveling peasants, isn't it? Of course, it's all their fault anyway, isn't it?

Geesh, you libs sure do have gloom and doom down pat. Yes, everything is horrible! It's all going to hell in a handbasket! The sky is falling and we're all gonna burn up! People aren't buying Playstations, blu-rays, iPhones and bling-bling left and right, they're all "sniveling peasants" hovering in gutters, emaciated and rail thin, waiting for their next scrap of bread to be tossed to them!

I know! Let's get some bunch of government busybodies to steal from those eeeeeevil rich people, create new and more bloated ponzi schemes based on mountains of debt previously undreamed of, and pretend it all magically saaaaaaaaaaves these poor, poor, suffering and sniveling peasants!

That's exactly how it always works, right!?! That's how you libs have already eliminated poverty, right? (Well gee, I guess except for the 50% of everyone else that's a poor, poor, sniveling peasant!) That'll solve EVERYTHING!

[besson3c]

Crash: why does every choice have to involve the extremes? I know the moderate choices are not as sexy, but they do exist.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

OldMacMan: why does every choice have to involve the extremes? I know the moderate choices are not as sexy, but they do exist.

Fixed

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: why does every choice have to involve the extremes? I know the moderate choices are not as sexy, but they do exist.

Besson, point to me a time when people weren't concerned with the cost of education, where their cars never broke down (and of course, just about everyone even had one), where they went around hoping for a medical emergency because it was so affordable and fun, where their employer could never cut their job, etc. etc. etc.

Moderate choices? How is whining about any of the above like it's never been seen before anything to do with any moderate choice?

[BRussell]

Well before we talk about how liberals are congenital economic pessimists, let's not forget that it's really just a matter of who's in office: When Clinton was in office, liberals were the optimists and conservatives were the doom-and-gloomers, and now that Bush is in office, it's the other way around. The main difference is that things really were better during the 1990s.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How can the economy be growing with such huge debt? Have you looked at those numbers stupendousman?

Yes, isn't that amazing. Something doesn't fit. MAYBE "the economy" doesn't consider the debt to be that "huge." Otherwise, "the economy" wouldn't be growing -- since it is, maybe someone's assumptions are off.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, isn't that amazing. Something doesn't fit. MAYBE "the economy" doesn't consider the debt to be that "huge." Otherwise, "the economy" wouldn't be growing -- since it is, maybe someone's assumptions are off.

Exactly. The definition of "recession" never included debt.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well before we talk about how liberals are congenital economic pessimists, let's not forget that it's really just a matter of who's in office: When Clinton was in office, liberals were the optimists and conservatives were the doom-and-gloomers, and now that Bush is in office, it's the other way around. The main difference is that things really were better during the 1990s.

Things were better mid-90's, but the economic boom was based on an industry which was booming due to speculation and over exuberance of the market, a market which not much later went bust. That caused the recessionary economy that started during the end of the Clinton administration.

It's fair to point out that whatever party isn't in power will put a negative spin on the economy hoping it will hurt the party in power. The difference is though that the media only plays along when Republicans are in power. We currently don't have a recession, yet the democrats falsely claim we we do and the media repeats it. As shown by the link I provided, when Dick Cheney explained that the economy during the end of the Clinton administration was pretty bad, he was attacked as "talking down the economy" in the mainstream media. Dick Cheney was the story - not the crappy economic status of the country. Some would say that's an unfair advantage.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Things were better mid-90's, but the economic boom was based on an industry which was booming due to speculation and over exuberance of the market, a market which not much later went bust. That caused the recessionary economy that started during the end of the Clinton administration.

stupendousman, this is just false. The economic boom included speculation, but it was for the most part based on solid new technology, the internet. I can't see how you could miss this on an online forum.

The difference is though that the media only plays along when Republicans are in power. We currently don't have a recession, yet the democrats falsely claim we we do and the media repeats it. As shown by the link I provided, when Dick Cheney explained that the economy during the end of the Clinton administration was pretty bad, he was attacked as "talking down the economy" in the mainstream media. Dick Cheney was the story - not the crappy economic status of the country. Some would say that's an unfair advantage.

The fact is that Americans were much better off economically at the end of the Clinton administration than at the beginning of it. Americans are much worse off economically at the end of the Bush administration than at the beginning of it. (I hope you agree? Or do you agree with McCain that falling real wages are a sign of economic progress?) This is what explains the media coverage. It is focused more on the negative long-term trend over the last eight years than on the specific moment.

Whether or not we have a recession officially at the moment, it feels like one to a lot of people. Jobs aren't being created as fast as the population is growing (and haven't for all the last eight years). Real wages are falling. House prices are plummeting. Gas prices are high. If you look at the press release, the only thing driving the GDP growth is export growth (15%), which is tied to the extremely weak dollar.

Crash, I think you need to read your own posts.

I know! Let's get some bunch of government busybodies to steal from those eeeeeevil rich people, create new and more bloated ponzi schemes based on mountains of debt previously undreamed of, and pretend it all magically saaaaaaaaaaves these poor, poor, suffering and sniveling peasants!

"Mountains of debt previously unheard of." I guess you are referring to Bush here? By "poor, poor, suffering and sniveling peasants," I guess you mean anybody earning less than $5 million a year who can count on one hand the number of homes they own?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, this is just false. The economic boom included speculation, but it was for the most part based on solid new technology, the internet. I can't see how you could miss this on an online forum.

Then surely the "boom" continued unabated, given that it was based on "solid new technology". Oh wait...that didn't happen. :lol

The fact is that Americans were much better off economically at the end of the Clinton administration than at the beginning of it.

Clinton inherited a rising economy and left with a recessionary economy. Economically, that's not a good thing. You can argue that in the middle of that there was economic good times, but I remember a lot of people who were living the high life during the mid-nineties going back to live with their folks towards the end of the Clinton administration.

Americans are much worse off economically at the end of the Bush administration than at the beginning of it. (I hope you agree? Or do you agree with McCain that falling real wages are a sign of economic progress?)

Bush brought us out of recession. We have not gone back. Gas prices are a killer, but that's because of the shackles the left have put on production. You can't blame Bush for that.

Whether or not we have a recession officially at the moment, it feels like one to a lot of people.

Gas prices and the left-leaning MSM. We've discussed it already.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then surely the "boom" continued unabated, given that it was based on "solid new technology". Oh wait...that didn't happen. :lol

Are you trying to argue against me or just tell jokes? Look up the productivity growth figures.

Clinton inherited a rising economy and left with a recessionary economy. Economically, that's not a good thing.

Economically, that's irrelevant. What matters are the levels of the economic indicators, not their derivatives.

You can argue that in the middle of that there was economic good times, but I remember a lot of people who were living the high life during the mid-nineties going back to live with their folks towards the end of the Clinton administration.

Ooh, argument by anecdote. My friend Bob lost his job, too. Are you serious?

Bush brought us out of recession. We have not gone back. Gas prices are a killer, but that's because of the shackles the left have put on production. You can't blame Bush for that.

You know that's not true. I hope. Maybe not. Anybody who would seriously argue that Clinton was bad for the economy because a friend lost his job... Well, I don't know. "Going French"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Are you trying to argue against me or just tell jokes? Look up the productivity growth figures.

Look at the stock market. Watch as the surge in tech stocks, and the later bust followed growth.

Economically, that's irrelevant. What matters are the levels of the economic indicators, not their derivatives.

Your opinion is noted.

Ooh, argument by anecdote. My friend Bob lost his job, too. Are you serious?

It's not just a single anecdote and you know it. You are being disingenuous.

You know that's not true. I hope. Maybe not. Anybody who would seriously argue that Clinton was bad for the economy because a friend lost his job... Well, I don't know.

Intellectual dishonesty right there. I suggest dishonesty because I know you are smarter than that.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Look at the stock market. Watch as the surge in tech stocks, and the later bust followed growth.

No, don't. What does that matter?

It's not just a single anecdote and you know it. You are being disingenuous.

Oh, how many anecdotes is it? Arguing by anecdote is either stupid or disingenuous. If you want to argue about unemployment, then google unemployment figures. Don't tell me a story about how your brother lost his job. If you want to argue about productivity growth due to new technology, then look up productivity statistics. Don't tell me how tech stocks fell.

[zombie punk]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Welcome to the real world, instead of the debt-created fantasy land you've been living in since the end of WWII. You rode high on that debt for a long, long time and now it's time to pay the piper.

I think the issue is that the word 'recession' has two meanings - the first is a technical economic definition, and the second is the feeling of the working people of being economically screwed on a nation-wide basis.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zombie punk 

I think the issue is that the word 'recession' has two meanings - the first is a technical economic definition, and the second is the feeling of the working people of being economically screwed on a nation-wide basis.

There is no second definition. "Recession" is a technical economic term. If people choose to use the term to describe something other than what can be correctly defined as a "recession" than they are likely doing it due to laziness or political posturing.

[smacintush]

Here's how a recession seems to be defined by most people I know:

Step one - They heard someone mention the possibility or the question of a recession on TV, on the radio or in the paper. They either don't watch, listen to or read the whole story. Or else they don't comprehend.

Step two - THERE IS NO STEP TWO! INSTANT RECESSION! (I wish I were kidding)

[zombie punk]

So you think it has nothing to do with having less real spending power than before?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There is no second definition. "Recession" is a technical economic term. If people choose to use the term to describe something other than what can be correctly defined as a "recession" than they are likely doing it due to laziness or political posturing.

You yourself have been using the informal definition! How else could you claim that anecdotal tales of friends who lost their jobs was evidence for a recession? This is unbelievable. "Go French" my friend.

[tie]

Hm, the unemployment rate just passed 6%, from 5% just in April. It will likely be revised upward, too. Every recession is different, but this is still looking like one.

[nonhuman]

Well, that's what happens when you raise the minimum wage...

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by tie 

Hm, the unemployment rate just passed 6%, from 5% just in April. It will likely be revised upward, too. Every recession is different, but this is still looking like one.

Especially since that number is a five-years-maximum now... which is not good, because it could mean the slow way into a (semi-)recession would also mean the same slow way out of it.

PB.

[ort888]

There is no worse strategy then telling people who are struggling that they aren't.

Apparently there is no economic trouble and I'm just imagining it! Great! Tell that to my 401k. Tell that to the wage freeze and layoffs my company has established, tell that to my monthly gas and medical bills skyrocketing every month, tell it to my house which is currently worth less then what I owe on it.

I guess I just saw all that stuff on the news. It's all in my head.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, isn't that amazing. Something doesn't fit. MAYBE "the economy" doesn't consider the debt to be that "huge." Otherwise, "the economy" wouldn't be growing -- since it is, maybe someone's assumptions are off.

The debt is that huge finboy, and I'll just be blunt, you are smoking crack if you don't think that it is a problem. You would be hard pressed to find an economist that isn't concerned about our debt, seriously. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue either, the numbers are the numbers, and this is probably the biggest problem our nation faces right now.

I'm not making comments about whether or not the economy is growing, I'm saying that whatever growth we are seeing is based on money that we don't own.

[OldManMac]

I didn't think the WSJ was a liberal rag, but then again, I may be wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169431617549947.html

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

One pleasant mystery is why the crisis hasn't hit the economy harder -- at least so far. "This financial crisis hasn't yet translated into fewer...companies starting up, less research and development, less marketing," Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said Wednesday. "We haven't seen that yet. I'm sure every company is keeping their eyes on it."

At 6.1%, the unemployment rate remains well below the peak of 7.8% in 1992, amid the S&L crisis.

In part, that's because government has reacted aggressively. The Fed's classic mistake that led to the Great Depression was that it tightened monetary policy when it should have eased. Mr. Bernanke didn't repeat that error. And Congress moved more swiftly to approve fiscal stimulus than most Washington veterans thought possible.

In part, the broader economy has held mostly steady because exports have been so strong at just the right moment, a reminder of the global economy's importance to the U.S. And in part, it's because the U.S. economy is demonstrating impressive resilience, as information technology allows executives to react more quickly to emerging problems and -- to the discomfort of workers -- companies are quicker to adjust wages, hiring and work hours when the economy softens.

But the risk remains that Wall Street's woes will spread to Main Street, as credit tightens for consumers and business. Already, U.S. auto makers have been forced to tighten the terms on their leasing programs, or abandon writing leases themselves altogether, because of problems in their finance units. Goldman Sachs economists' optimistic scenario is a couple years of mild recession or painfully slow economy growth.

I know what'll fix everything- massive tax increases and new and more expansive government boondoggles.

[besson3c]

yeah... tax increase and expansive government! All over the place, like crazy!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Bingo.

The media and the left wants us to be in a recession in order to try and make Bush look bad in regards to the economy, to help the Democrats. There are currently economic challenges that have to be addressed, but all signs point to a growing economy.

Back during our last recession during the Clinton administration, the media and the left insisted that we were doing fine and any suggestion that the alarming economic numbers pointed toward a recession was an example of republicans "talking down the economy". When Dick Cheney pointed out the dismal state of our economic affairs back during Bush's first campaign, he was castigated for pointing out the fact that the economy really wasn't growing. It wasn't until after Clinton left office that they all had to admit that YES, we were in a recessionary state during the last year he was in office.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...ney/index.html

It's all politics.

Who cares if we call it a recession? For Pete's sake, are you arguing things are good right now?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Who cares if we call it a recession? For Pete's sake, are you arguing things are good right now?

Back during G.W. Bush's first election, when we were pretty much in an actual recession, no one dared call it that. Dick Cheney was accused of "talking down" the economy when it was already "down". When G.H.W.Bush ran against Clinton, it was 'the economy' stupid from his opponent and the media, despite the fact that the economy was growing and there wasn't a recession.

For some reason, the actual state of the economy does not matter to Democrats and their friends in the media. Regardless of the fact that things can ALWAYS be better. Facts be damned.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: the bottom line is that whatever "growth" the economy is seeing is based on credit spending - money that we don't have. Why? Because of lousy, irresponsible leadership.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman: the bottom line is that whatever "growth" the economy is seeing is based on credit spending - money that we don't have. Why? Because of lousy, irresponsible leadership.

Huh? Our "leadership" tells us to spend on credit, and this is different from the Clinton years how?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Huh? Our "leadership" tells us to spend on credit, and this is different from the Clinton years how?

We had a surplus and a balanced budget for part of this tenure?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We had a surplus and a balanced budget for part of this tenure?

Part. Yes. Post 1994. That still doesn't explain how when we were in a recession, everything was good, but now when we are not in a recession, everything is bad. Up is down. Right is left.