Ok, just a minute...
That about covers it.
Posted on 05/10/2008 2:09:13 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
"It's a recession," said President Harry Truman, "when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours."
For people facing home foreclosure, job loss or the struggle of paying high gas prices, the definition a recession seems immaterial and insignificant. True.
But during an election year, the media's constant use or expectation of "recession" does matter. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's likely nominee, already considers the U.S. economy "in a recession."
So are we — at least as economists commonly define the term?
No — not even close.
But a recent typical news wire story, however, goes like this: "[George W.] Bush's news conference ... appeared to be a pre-emptive measure of sorts, as it came a day before the release of statistics on the nation's gross domestic product for January through March. The common definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP and many expect Wednesday's report to provide the first official confirmation of a slide." Well, case closed.
Yes, economists generally define a recession as two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the nonpartisan organization the government uses to determine economic cycles, defines a recession as a period of sustained negative economic growth — with GDP its most important variable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There is no recession yet. People are peeved about gas and items related to the commodity in the form of transportation, gas, costs.
And there won't be a recession unless something catastrophic happens. We've turned the corner and things have bottomed out.
Yep. All that’s left to do now is ride the wave.
Ok, just a minute...
That about covers it.
Recession... The democrats at work been telling me for the past few months that we went past recession smack dab into a depression the likes of which we have never seen.
Nobody paid attention to him. Republicans decided to vote for McCain instead.
Probably because it's doubtful that he would carry the state. Michigan, and it's one state recession, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DemocRat party.....
Just a wild guess here...... could Michigan’s “recession” woes be because of your Democratic controlled state government?
Yeah, of course, that’s the central problem...we have a welfare constituency in Detroit that reelects these people time and again...
Not to mention the open voter fraud that goes on there...not that the national media is interested.
The economic is not growing as quickly as it was. But is it shrinking? I don’t think so. I think it was in “speculate with extra money phase”, and now it is in the “work hard and stick to safe bets” phase. I think it will soon open up more again.
Some parts of the country are probably in recession, though. I speak from anecdotal evidence, not much more.
Constitutional amendments 15,19,24,and 26 expanded the right to vote to exactly the types of people Adams and the Founders warned against. The mess in Michigan is merely the precursor, it is now not a question of if the Republic will fall, but only of when.
The percentage of 18-20 year olds voting Obama is terrifying, and if he is elected, the question will have been answered.
John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.
But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?
If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
Just stand by and wait until next year. If the democrat wins the press will call this a depression that he inherited. If McCain wins they will call it a dip in the economy.
While I can certainly cede the points made by John Adams, it seems his argument failed when we lost real property rights. If you believe we still have property rights, I suggest you consider what happens when you fail to pay taxes. Who then “owns” the property? We are merely renters, the true rights of property holders are now in the hands of government.
Just curious - was his chief cause overbearing government regulation, or crushing tax burdens?
Personally, I think regulation is more to blame.
I believe he hit on both of those, and emphasized how government policies in these areas convince corporations to send jobs overseas. China benefits and Michigan loses. Hunter believes that free trade is good and helps America — but we can’t let other countries cheat: when they do, the “free trade” ends up hurting us.
Thanks - I wish the guy (Hunter) had lasted longer in the race.
Where’s the recession?
Grain is up 50%
Meat will follow as soon as the glut from early slaughter is sucked up.
Gas is you know where and wait until next heating season when oil is up to $200.
People cant afford what is ahead and GNP will contract.
last time i checked fuel was $3.80 here, and that rebate check won't even fill my tank... but that, and another couple hundred bucks gets me a wonderful new coal stove that burns $210 a ton coal and still works when the power is out.
What’s the story behind the picture?
The other 45 states are either flat or growing.
My guess is that Michigan is probably the worst.
No, INDEPENDENTS and DEMOCRATS voted for McCain in OPEN PRIMARY STATES.The Dems are PISSED off that we are doing (per Operation CHAOS) what they did to us.
Michigan was one of 2 states that lost population in the 2000s. The other was Rhode Island.
I don't see a recession....what I do see is that some prices are actually coming down to the betterment of most of us..milk, for one...
of course you have to bargain shop....but that's second nature to a lot of us...
can we all agree that the whole primary was rigged from the gitgo?.....the elitist wanted a lefty and they are getting one no matter who gets elected...although, one is more a patriot than the other two...........
when the caucauses and primary were held in my state, the election was basically over.....Fred, Rudy, etc had all dropped out...
if the young, the female, the minority can't vote, however, I say the old can't vote either...anyone over 65 should not have a say.....how would that go over....
There was a reason the Founders set it up the way they did.
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.