Recession:   A word used to describe the year preceeding a presidential election when the incumbent president is a Republican.

It might as well be from Jeannine Aversa

Knowing it to be false, the writer claimed, apparently in an article,
that we were in a recession. However, when asked the question by an
individual, gave a much clearer and accurate description. My theory:
the first article is to a generic crowd that that they do not have to answer
to so their answer can be whatever they want it to be. The other
answer had to be directed to an individual; someone who would be able
to ask follow up questions, question the answer, or have any number of
differing ways to respond; All of which the person answering must
account to.

So: Answer an individual and you have to be honest, at least to a
certain extent because they can/should/will/might hold you accountable
Answer to a generic crowd and you can say whatever you want
because the crowd will not hold you accountable because, most likely,
there will be no consensus with the crowd. Some in the crowd will
always defend your statements for you, thus you never have to defend
your words yourself.

How convenient

Just an observation

Dear Libs,

Normally I don't root for the disease. But in your case I am willing to make and exception.

"What is resting on that determination?"

IMO, Mr. Hein's question implies that the tracking of the economy, in terms of growth, inflation, stagnation..  whatever.. is overdone, and of course, it is.  And IMO, I think Aversa's answer exposes what is wrong with the thinking of the economy watchers (writers like Aversa, and certainly Congress, D's & R's) in Washington today, in that they beleive it is their responsibility to "manage" the economy, or to "judge how policymakers" have managed the economy.  They want policymakers to..  make policy.  To bandaid whatever they perceive to be wrong, or to guard against perceived threats to economic prosperity..  no, no..  I mean to guard against unfairness in the distribution of economic prosperity. 

Imagine..  where would we be right now without all the over hyped indicators driving economic decisions. What if we only had those indicators that the private sector deemed useful and efficient in monitoring their business contracts and activity?

Using their fuzzy math, if I've been getting a 3 percent salary raise every year, and this year I only get a 1 percent raise, I can assert that my company has actually docked my pay.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

"...a recession determination "is used to judge how policymakers — in the
White House, at the Federal Reserve, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere —
handled the economy and its problems on their watch."

We don't have a centrally-planned economy, so this is also untrue. Actually, the state of the economy reflects the business activity of the private sector, I believe. I guess Jeannine believes we are a socialist country.

It's pretty obvious how to become an economic reporter, in the MSM. First, you have to understand the different meanings, of the word recession, and their implications in the perception of how a president is doing. Secondly, you have to be able to tap dance around definitions of recession, as understood by professionals in the field, since you may be questioned. Finally, above all, you must be able to show that Republican policies are bad and Democrats policies are good, despite statistics which might show something different. The best example of this is the "Clinton Economy" which was based on Dot Coms, Enron, and World Com. It was going to hell in a handbasket and yet he still gets credit for a great economy. Meanwhile, the media has been able to say the word recession, and put it in large print, only to have to post articles, on page 19a, that surprisingly, the economy was not in recession. It's amazing how these tactics can give the illusion of the desired effect.

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.