Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (478411)	5/6/2009 2:51:58 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574487

But the NBER are the ones who say there was a recession in 2001, a recession you often offer as an excuse for Bush's fiscal failures. So which is it? Was there a recession in 2001 even though there were not 2 consecutive quarters of negative gdp? Why do you keep claiming there was one if you don't accept NBER's dating? SD

To: jlallen who wrote (478411)	5/6/2009 3:06:09 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Respond to of 1574487

Here's something else you said: siliconinvestor.com NBER's method is not that one which is commonly used to determine when we are in recession....a recession is, by most common definiton, characterized by at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Kenny boy would naturally pick a methodology which supports his BDS afflicted viewpoint. You often bring up the 2001 recession to attack Clinton/Gore and to defend Bush's fiscal failures. Yet that recession doesn't meet what you call the "most common" definition of a recession. Aren't you just exposing your own derangement and your own hypocrisy? Or is this just more "hyperbole" on your part. And what exactly is the difference between hyperbole and you lying your ass off? SD