We're NOT in a recession. John Stossel says so!

[bbernardini]

http://snipurl.com/2vi5u


:sarcasm:

[PA Democrat]

1. I guess he won't say this on air. His corporate puppet strings

would be visible.

[gratuitous]

2. Heck, his fat paychecks still cash

No recession for John, the only "journalist" in America whose contract has a liar's clause, allowing him to say any stupid thing that leaks into his empty little head.

[Zywiec]

3. What is the bbernardini definition of a recession?

How does bbernardini know when we're in one?

I know economists disagree on exactly what it is, so I'd be interested in your opinion.

[bulloney]

10. They never declare we're in a recession until after the fact.

During the whole time the economy struggles the administration in power and the media gerbils deny there's a recession. Then, about a year later, they'll refer to that period as "the recession."

Regardless of whether the stats and the liars that manipulate them make it official, if you're unemployed or underemployed, if your paycheck doesn't cover necessary expenses and other criteria, you're in financial trouble and you don't need some government stat or media gerbil to declare it for you.

[bbernardini]

11. Did you miss the "sarcasm" smiley in my original post? nt

[Zywiec]

15. I didn't miss the sarcasm tag at all

I was just looking for your definition of what is a recession.

[meegbear]

4. This is the spin for the upcoming election ...

"The media is reporting the economy is bad so Obama will get elected because they support him".

:eyes:

[DailyGrind51]

5. If there is only only one example fitting Stossel's argument, he will

use it. The guy is an uncompromising libertarian ideologue.

[bulloney]

13. Are libertarians anything but uncompromising?

They have all of the answers. Just ask them.

They have such a simplistic vision of how an economy runs. It's like their brains are missing something that processes nuances and anything else that flies in the face of their "black and white" views.

[fasttense]

6. Who?????

[spanone]

7. there ya go. no need to debate it any longer.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Gato Moteado]

8. i remember way back in the 80s when that wrestler bitchslapped stossel.....

....now that was cool.

[bulloney]

14. I remember it, too. Too bad he didn't pile drive Stossel.

[KharmaTrain]

9. His Speaking Fees Are Up This Year

He surely doesn't look at a stock portfolio...even the rich can't help but notice how they've been losing 5-10% or more of their value in the past three months. But then if that portfolio is heavy in oil stocks, then you're golden.

Stossel want to be the next Ronnie Raygun...who shilled for the corporates (General Electric) and made a very nice buck. Yep, he's not seeing a recession, cause every time he says it, another speaking gig for some right wing "think tank" or corporate meeting gets thrown his way. The true definition of a media whore.

[liberal N proud]

12. For the rich, the economy is not in a recession

They still have buying power, maybe more than ever since all our cash is now in their pockets.

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. It would be interesting to see if they used the same economic idicators...

As they did during the Great Depression.

[SteelPenguin]

23. This is an EXCELLENT point

It's like comparing the scoring of a modern sports player in any sport to one 100 years ago. Different games, different rules, different materials. How can you compare?

I read onetime that if we used the same methods of measuring unemployment as we did during the great depression we'd be showing well over 10% unemployment currently. The problem is now, unlike then, after a certain amount of time a person who doesn't have a job isn't considered unemployed anymore. They're considered as a person who has chosen not to have a job so don't count. Nice.

Same for other economic indicators. They've been successively tweaked here and there to the point where it's hard to know what's actually going on anymore. Maybe this is a good thing. I don't know. If the markets thought we had 14% unemployment, and had been in a severe recession for over a year what would happen? Panic? I don't know. Still we have no real idea what the actual numbers are anymore.

Still, just by looking around I don't think we're anywhere near comparing this to the Great Depression, and with that I agree with Stossel. We're in a recession, regardless of what the cooked numbers say. At least for a majority of american's, whatever we want to call it, economically times are tough. it's not the depression though. I wasn't alive then but I heard stories and I read about it in school. Just because gas is super expensive, and you're having a hard time making ends meet, and many of us are...it doesn't mean it wasn't 100 times worse during the Great Depression.

Yes. We do have bananas today.

[SteelPenguin]

24. Found one. Current Unemployment Men: 13%, Women 27%

"In January, almost 13 percent of prime-age men did not hold a job, up from 11 percent in 1998, 11 percent in 1988, 9 percent in 1978 and just 6 percent in 1968."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/business/05leonhardt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Then We Absolutely MUST Be

Since he's typically completely wrong about nearly everything, he's bound to be wrong about this.

So, i'll say full-on recession, since Stossel says otherwise.

He's an undereducated, overly officious twit.
The professor

[Zynx]

18. Ugggghhhhh....He's such a moron.

Back in 2001 we supposedly had positive growth in Q1 and Q2 when the reports first came out, but upon later revision we determined that the recession struck earlier than we realized when they were revised down heavily.

[Blue_Tires]

19. yeah, a high-profile PR rep was profiled in a trade magazine

and he said in so many words that "How can there be a recession if I'm making this much money??" I just wanted to shake my head.

[guitar man]

20. he's right, we're not in a recession

....it's a goddamned depression for a lot of us! :grr:

[kwassa]

21. I don't know why Stossel has a job.

He is clearly the worst excuse for a journalist in major media.

He makes Geraldo look like Pulitzer Prize material.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. Sounds like Stossel thinks the recession is fake.

He once told the truth (believe it or not) by telling WWF wrestler "Dr. D (death)" David Schultz that professional wrestling is fake and here's what happened:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

So far as I know, this was Stossel's first and last experiment with truthtelling.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Well, He Should Know Fake

He's a complete fraud, himself!
The Professor

[closeupready]

27. OMG - ROFL That is funny

:D

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. Yeah, sounds like Stossel had the last laugh though...

...from Youtuber Jclown94:

On December 28, 1984, during an interview for 20/20 on professional wrestling, wrestler David Schultz struck Stossel after Stossel asked whether professional wrestling was fake. Stossel stated that he still suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault. Stossel sued and obtained a settlement of $425,000 from the WWF, after which "the pain slowly went away." Schultz maintains that he attacked Stossel on orders from Vince McMahon, the head of the WWF.

[Greeby]

29. Shame that Schultz' career pretty much ended with that slap

and Stossel still has a job. That guy had the charisma to go far

[SidneyCarton]

26. John Stossel is a boil on Corporate America's white pimply arse.

Every once in a while he vomits forth more of his master's vile putrescence of lies and filth.

[undeterred]

30. GIVE ME A BREAK!

He has no credibility at all with me.