To: TigerLikesRooster; PAR35; bamahead; AndyJackson; Thane_Banquo; nicksaunt; MadLibDisease; ...
2 posted on
12/23/2008 7:05:52 AM PST by
TigerLikesRooster
(kim jong-il, chia head, ppogri, In Grim Reaper we trust)
To: TigerLikesRooster
Annual rate - that means the actual decline within the quarter was 0.125%, aka the real economy is .99875 times as large as it was in the stimulus-package goosed second quarter, and still larger by 0.6% than in the first. The great depression this is not.
3 posted on
12/23/2008 7:13:33 AM PST by
JasonC
To: TigerLikesRooster
Up the minumum wage.
Ignore the high price of oil...
Create a mortgage market for people with lousy credit and lousy work ethics...
Support Illegal immigrants
Voila!!
6 posted on
12/23/2008 7:29:15 AM PST by
Sacajaweau
(I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
To: TigerLikesRooster
I am so confused. Does this mean that the GDP was actually positive growth in the 3rd quarter? If so, then we still haven’t entered the “recession” the media and Liberal/Democrats want so badly.
10 posted on
12/23/2008 8:25:26 AM PST by
FreeAtlanta
(Join the Constitution Party)
To: TigerLikesRooster
The economy grew 2.8% in the second quarter. Economists now say that a recession began December 2007, based on data showing declining employment, incomes and industrial production Where did this new definition of a recession come from? I had always heard that it was two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction, which (presuming that in the fourth quarter it shrinks) would mean the recession started July 2008.
11 posted on
12/23/2008 8:27:44 AM PST by
KarlInOhio
(11/4: The revolutionary socialists beat the Fabian ones. Where can we find a capitalist party?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson