Republicans immediately began changing the definition of a recession recalculating years back to 1929 with their new rules.
Clinton's last month was so good that they could not find a way to use the usual rules of consecutive months with negative calculations, so, they loaded up December and October with good stuff and managed to get November down to a small tiny negative, mostly by making rules to round certain things down rather than rounding the numbers or just using the raw numbers. Then, they convoluted the rule to include non-consecutive months and Republicans had from January 20th to January 31st to make January a downer, and all the months that followed under Republican control were also made downers.
So, they declared that the recession started under Clinton in November, despite October and December showing wildly good GDP growth.
Except, Republicans never included the details of it starting in November, just that it started under Clinton and that Bush inherited it. The M$M just played along and never challenged it, and never will they.
The stock market usually takes a hit around March before a November election. It took another hit and dropped a good bit as the election controversy began.
Aside, it's not funny how that caused people to pull money out of stocks and put money into their houses instead.
Notice how carefully they avoid giving any real comparison figures in the article.
They give US figures, then use only words to relate if higher or lower.
Then they pull a fast one separating our total health care cost into what we pay in premiums versus what is supplemented by our taxes.
The attempt is to make our spending look like some middle of the road government muddle. It's not. We spend way too much and get way too little.
They also use acronyms without spelling them out: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to make you think that you might not be good enough to understand so you won't tweet this article. And, why quote that group anyway -- because if they said Europe, you'd understand it and retain the information in a usable speakable way.
And, the M$M knows that if we knew we spent TWICE what other countries spend, ALL OF THEM, and we don't rate at the top of every chart... they'd remember the number TWO, as in twice the cost.
Reagan borrowed our way out of that and we've been paying dearly since. It's kind of analogous the current situation with Obama *slowing* the loss of jobs only to be told that it's still fewer jobs so we should put the guys who accelerated our losses back into the driver seat.
Or, was it that he did not get the hostages out of Iran, that happened the minute Reagan was sworn into office and then the money used to keep our hostages there was found in Iran-Contra...
Or, was it that he did not take credit for Russia falling apart due to our more intelligent armaments, multiple warhead rockets, developed during Carter's time -- a president who understood diplomacy and a physicist that understood the rocket science of his era when it was needed.
Or, did you oppose the treaties he helped that stand to this day.
Just curious, what is the reason he disappointed you.
The difference comes from whom they benefit and and whom they involve.
A greedy subset of the rich unionize / communalize creating and using think-tanks and their crossover corporate boards of directors in ways to effect information control and control of so-called elected officials and which elected officials manage to become officials.
They accept the resulting rich-socialized tax rates and power positions.
What they don't want is for unionization / socialization / communization to apply to all people, instead of just their socio-economic peers.
The bigger problem is that we are the same. We don't want it to apply to all people either, we just want it to apply to fellow Americans.
1. Interest rates for borrowing are low and going lower. It's not nice having a huge national debt, but it's not our biggest problem.
We have bunches of people not working, we're better off working them while raising that debt rather than austerity and watching more people not finding work.
2. The big problem is outstanding derivatives neatly tucked in retirement accounts waiting to be cashed. By then, there will be no cash. Partly because of too many not working.
Already, cities and companies cannot pay their retirees.
The Republicans made hay out of derivatives over and over.
First, it brought up a floundering Bush economy in 2004 by borrowing against our future. (Welcome to the future.)
Second, it made their buddies in banks a lot of bucks, including our direct tax dollars.
Third, it comes due later, in the future, in a future Obama administration. Oh, yeah, we're here now. The retirement accounts across the country are going or going to go under. ***Remember what fun the fund managers had going to Hawaii to learn how to invest retirement accounts?***
Fourth, with people not working, government on the hook for retirements, Social Security will be argued as not viable. Too bad, so sad. (With a hands up Yippee from Republicans.)
Our U.S. 15-trillion dollar economy runs on about 2-3 trillion in cash. So, how much derivative cash is out there? I hear 600-1200 trillion dollars.
That's a lot of debt.
The national debt is a tiny 16 trillion in comparison.
They were mad at Bush because Bush was so bad he could not hide his bad effects, then they were mad at how the recall was handled.
Well, there was costly damage to the Capitol. (Media overblew it, ill-informing the voters.)
Well, we don't take handouts. (You would if your kid were dying. Others would prefer not to need it.)
Add in some push-polling, purchased street PR artists, more ads than the opposition, ... not to mention machine counted votes.
Republicans found out how much money is required to buy an election.
I do not think that religion had changed our politics, I think our politics had changed these religions. We became rich and have not used enough of that wealth to properly police our domestic enemies of our democracy which I see as our press being too close with those few who want to steal our wealth. And, these bad few have found an avenue of control in controlling what churches teach by using large donations. This is where the author's idea of fundamentalism evolves churches from teaching love and compassion to teaching that money is good and those who oppose the new teachings are bad.
Many here say that religion causes the problem. I say that they are pointing at something so as to avoid seeing the finger of blame pointing at themselves, because the problem is in ourselves.