Lets make it sound even worse... by redefining “recession”.
My understanding, the term “recession” is defined (in economic terms) as a decline in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.
But the “official announcement” uses the other, less accepted definition of the term as a downward trend in the rate of actual GDP growth as promoted by the business-cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research. That private organization defines a recession more ambiguously as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months.
And anyone want to take a stab why this is definition being used? Think about it - if a recession is claimed to have developed in the last couple of months, then some can be attached to Obama. But backing up the “start date” to December 2007 (the peak of economic growth) would make it more of a “Bush problem”.
We just can’t have Obama taking ANY blame.. after all, he is the (ineligible to serve as POTUS) OBAMAMESSIAH!!!!
Well hell, even then it can't be a recession, because IIRC, in 4q of 07 GDP went DOWN .7, in 1q of 08 it went up .9, and in 2q of 08 it went up 2.3....HOW IN THE WORLD IS THAT A 'DOWNWARD TREND'???
I mean, I thought economists were scientists of a sort how is an ambiguous definition ANY SORT OF SCIENCE?????????
Answer: it isn't. This stinks like a rotten fish of politicizing.
Man, I really am beginning to feel like the last days of the Republic are upon us.