[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China"

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Business
See other Business Articles

Title: Revisions Show 2007-2009 Recession Deeper Than Thought
Source: Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.telegram.com/article/201 ... 9/NEWS/110729607/1002/business
Published: Jul 29, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-07-29 11:12:15 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 39771
Comments: 67

(07-29) 05:36 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The 2007-2009 recession, already in the record books as the worst in the 66 years since the end of World War II, was even worse than previously thought.

From the start of the recession at the end of 2007 to the end in June of 2009, the U.S. economy shrank 5.1 percent. That is 1 percentage point worse than the previous estimate that the recession reduced total output during that period by 4.1 percent.

The new estimates emerged from the annual revision of economic data prepared by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis and released Friday.

Among the previous 10 postwar recessions, output in only two dropped by more 3 percent. In the 1957-58 recession, the economy contracted 3.7 percent. And during the 1973-1975 downturn, the economy fell 3.2 percent from the start of the recession to the end.

The government attributed the bigger declines in output in part to weaker consumer spending and business investment than previously estimated.

By year, the government's new figures show that the economy took a much bigger hit in 2009, when output shrank 3.5 percent. The previous estimate had shown a decline of 2.5 percent that year.

In 2008, the new estimate shows the economy contracted by 0.3 percent. The previous estimate had indicated that output was unchanged for that year compared with 2007.

The last recession began in December 2007 and lasted until June 2009. Though the economy has been growing since then, growth has been subpar. And the unemployment rate has remained elevated; it's now 9.2 percent.

The revisions showed that growth in 2010 was a bit stronger than previously estimated. They put growth for all of 2010 at 3 percent, up from a previous estimate that the economy grew 2.9 percent last year.

The revisions to the country's gross domestic product, the total output of goods and services, used more complete data for such items as consumer and business spending.

The government's annual revisions are released each July, along with its first estimate of growth for the April-June quarter of the current year.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50.

#27. To: Brian S (#0)

The 2007-2009 recession, already in the record books as the worst in the 66 years since the end of World War II, was even worse than previously thought.

So where is the part about the Democrats took over as the majorities in the House and Senate in Jan 2007, and have been the ones lying about our economic growth??????

Ya think they also caused the Recession to happen instead of Bush????

CZ82  posted on  2011-07-29   16:41:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: CZ82 (#27)

So where is the part about the Democrats took over as the majorities in the House and Senate in Jan 2007, and have been the ones lying about our economic growth??????

The fact that the economy was beginning to falter in 2006 had a lot to do with why they regained the Congress.

Ya think they also caused the Recession to happen instead of Bush????

Why would you? They had nothing to do with the errors of the previous 6 years...

war  posted on  2011-07-29   16:56:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: war (#28)

The fact that the economy was beginning to falter in 2006 had a lot to do with why they regained the Congress.

No it didn't and you can't provide one contemporaneous source claiming it did.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-29   17:05:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: no gnu taxes (#29)

No it didn't and you can't provide one contemporaneous source claiming it did.

I schooled you at LP over this too, asshole.

Release Date: December 12, 2006

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 5-1/4 percent.

Economic growth has slowed over the course of the year, partly reflecting a substantial cooling of the housing market. Although recent indicators have been mixed, the economy seems likely to expand at a moderate pace on balance over coming quarters.

Readings on core inflation have been elevated, and the high level of resource utilization has the potential to sustain inflation pressures. However, inflation pressures seem likely to moderate over time, reflecting reduced impetus from energy prices, contained inflation expectations, and the cumulative effects of monetary policy actions and other factors restraining aggregate demand.

Nonetheless, the Committee judges that some inflation risks remain. The extent and timing of any additional firming that may be needed to address these risks will depend on the evolution of the outlook for both inflation and economic growth, as implied by incoming information.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Susan S. Bies; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Frederic S. Mishkin; Sandra Pianalto; William Poole; Kevin M. Warsh; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who preferred an increase of 25 basis points in the federal funds rate target at this meeting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You're welcome moron.

war  posted on  2011-07-29   20:16:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: war (#36)

That was after the election dumbass.

In fact this after election analysis was as such:

the economy seems likely to expand at a moderate pace on balance over coming quarters.

As I said, the economy had nothing to do with the 2006 election results. and you can't demonstrate otherwise.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-30   9:26:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: no gnu taxes (#42)

That was after the election dumbass.

The "course of the year" of 2006 was after the election?

You "say" a lot of stupid things...this one vaulted.

Again just for you Paddy:

Economic growth has slowed over the course of the year...

war  posted on  2011-07-30   9:36:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: war (#43)

The economy was not an issue with the voting public in 2006. Period.

You can't demonstrate otherwise. The closest thing you could possibly come up with is gas prices.

I'm not challenging to prove otherwise. I'm telling you you can't, with confidence.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-30   9:45:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: no gnu taxes (#44)

The economy was not an issue with the voting public in 2006. Period.

Iraq and the economy were the two biggest issues in 2006 PaddyKakes...50% of the people cited the economy as less than "good"...

So go stomp your I Love Bush feet at LP.

war  posted on  2011-07-30   11:02:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: war (#45)

The economy was not an issue with the voting public in 2006. Period.

Iraq and the economy were the two biggest issues in 2006 PaddyKakes...50% of the people cited the economy as less than "good"...

So go stomp your I Love Bush feet at LP.

Provide the proof and stop hand waving, dumbass.

Up until the 2006 election:

The economy was still growing.

Unemployment was under 5%.

The stock market was booming.

In fact, the deficit was lowering.

Provide some proof that the general public was dissatisfied with the economy as a reason for their votes or just admit you are full of shit and move on to your other areas of bullshit.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-30   12:25:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: no gnu taxes (#46)

Provide the proof and stop hand waving, dumbass.

Exit Poll Data, Asshole...

war  posted on  2011-07-30   13:39:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: war (#47)

Provide the proof and stop hand waving, dumbass.

Exit Poll Data, Asshole...

Is there some (non) proof in this exit poll data you wish to post?

You are full of shit. I know it.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-30   14:12:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: no gnu taxes (#48) (Edited)

Cbuckles...50% of the people who voted claimed concern over the economy...74% stated that the US was headed in the wrong direction.

Only in the Land of Bush Flechers Over Which YOU Reign Supreme is that the economy being "not an issue with the voting public" in an election.

Feel free to post your own poll now...

war  posted on  2011-07-30   15:03:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 50.

#58. To: war (#50)

Post what you THINK shows as the PDF file will not even how up here.

Again;

Under 5% unemployment

Growing economy

Businesses were hiring

Deficit was shrinking

Wikipeodias Analysis:

__

Beginning just after George W. Bush's reelection, political analysts point to a number of factors and events that led to the eventual Republican defeat in 2006. It is generally agreed that the single most important issue during the 2006 election was the war in Iraq, and more specifically President Bush's handling of it.

Public opinion polling conducted during the days just before the election and the weeks just after it showed that the war in Iraq was considered the most important election issue by the largest segment of the public.[25] Exit polling showed that relatively large majorities of voters both fell into the category of disapproving of the war or expressing the desire to withdraw troops in some type of capacity. Both brackets broke extremely heavily for Democrats.[26] The issue of the war seemed to play a large part in the nationalization of the election, a departure from previous midterm elections, which tended to be about local, district-centric issues.[27] The effect of this was a general nationwide advantage for Democrats, who were not seen as being as tied to the war as Republicans, led by George Bush, were.

President Bush himself, seen as the leader and face of the Republican party, was a large factor in the 2006 election. Exit polls showed that a large block of the electorate had voted for Democrats or for third parties specifically because of personal opposition to or dislike for Bush. The size of the segment that said it had voted specifically to support Bush was not as large.[28] Opposition to Bush was based on a number of factors, these not limited to opposition to his Social Security plan, the slow response of his administration to Hurricane Katrina, his perceived inaction in the face of and association with rising gas prices, and as mentioned above, his continued commitment to the war.[29]

Congressional approval, which had been slightly negative since before the 2004 election, began a steady drop beginning in March 2005. Congress's unprecedented and unpopular involvement in the Terri Schiavo controversy is often pointed to as the catalyst for this drop. Congressional scandals, such as the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, the sentencing of Duke Cunningham to over eight years in prison, the indictment of then House majority leader Tom DeLay, the corruption of William J. Jefferson and Bob Ney, the misconduct of Cynthia McKinney, and the Mark Foley scandal all continued to pull down congressional popularity. In the months leading up to the election, congressional approval ratings flirted with all-time historical lows. Because congress was controlled by Republicans, this high disapproval affected Republicans much more negatively than it did Democrats.

Democrats were successful in portraying the congress as a lazy, greedy, egotistical and inefficient "Do-Nothing Congress." Indeed, the congress had been in session much less than previous ones had[30] (including those under Republican control), and numerous public opinion polls showed that large majorities believed that the congress had accomplished less than normal. This too, took a toll on Republicans (as the leaders of the government).

The listed scandals were all dwarfed by the highly publicised Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September and rapidly metastasized to include the House Republican leadership. Florida Representative Mark Foley, who ironically headed the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, was found to have been making sexually lewd and highly inappropriate contacts online with male congressional pages, and it was soon found that members of the Republican leadership knew in some capacity of Foley's advances, yet took little action. The scandal allowed Democrats to adopt corruption as a campaign issue, and exit polls on election day showed that corruption remained an important issue, one that Democrats held an advantage on.[31] In addition, many (at the time and after the fact) cited the scandal as an event that sealed the fate of the Republican congress.[32][33] After the election, top Republican strategist Karl Rove specifically named the Foley scandal as the cause of the Republicans' loss of congress.[34]

The result was that on election day, many congressional seats had been touched by Republican scandals and were easier to pick up for Democrats than under normal conditions. These include but are not limited to the Montana Senate, Virginia Senate, CA-11, PA-07, PA-10, TX-22, OH-18, FL-16 and NY-20 races.

Almost all of the gains made by Democrats came from large gains among independents, not Republicans. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all accounted for proportions of the electorate similar to what they did in 2004. Democrats and Republicans voted nearly as loyally for their parties in 2006 as they did in 2004, but independents exhibited a large swing towards Democrats. In 2004, independents split 49-46, slightly in favor of Democrats,[35] but in 2006 they voted 57–39 for Democrats, a fifteen point swing and the largest margin among independents for Democrats since the US 1986 Midterm elections.[36]

--

Only an idiot like you would think the economy was any kind of an issue.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2011-07-30 16:32:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 50.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com