Will the economy uptick before November? By hook or by crook it will.

[techweenie]

Bush To Alter Economic Stats Again

Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.1 But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.

In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.2

This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office."3 Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year "unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton.4


Sources:

1. "Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04.

2. Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.

3. "Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star, 1/05/03.

4. "Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04.

[ubiquity0]

Its going to be called the Waist-Line index. An increase in obesity signals a better economy as, obviously, it means people have more money to buy food.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by techweenie
This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies.

Heck they did it with the terrorism report, they will tamper with anything. Jobs, national security, it's all a joke to these suckers.

[tabs]

OK TECHIE U opened it....

1. In January 2001 when GW took office the economy was allreadying sliding into recession. Stock market hits it's high in March 2000 and starts to slide

2. On September 11, 2001..The WTC goes down in flames from a Terrorist Attack...Stock market upon oopening one week later is down 500 points

3. In January 2002 the Enron scandal hits...if the swtock market had not been in decline for almost 2 years the excesses of Enron would have been further hidden....however it throws the Stock Market into a crsis of confidence...and causes further declines.

4. Worry of war with Irwreck cause the Stock Market to further decline through March 2003 when the Market begins to rally.


The allegation against Bush is that no president has presided over such a decline in jobs since Herbert Hoover and the Great depression...Well folks Bush certainly isn't responsible for the concidence of events in his administration...but that aside the effects of 911 were devastating to our economy...the Bear Market was the worst since the since the GREAT DEPRESSION...the USA iwasn't in a recession but an outright DEPRESSION after 911, the worst since the 1930's...we are slowly recovering but it ain't over yet... So you can see the devastating effect an act of terrorism can have on the house of cards we call our financial system. So don't go off half cocked and talk about Bush and the economy...we were lucky not to have felt more pain than we did....if U don't believe me answer one question why was the overnight lending rate reduced to 1%, the lowest in 40 years? The answer to provide liquidity to the system to keep it afloat. Perhaps we all should bow down to Alan Greenspan and say thanx along with the stimlus of the tax cuts...by keeping money in the consumers pockets it kept it in play....otherwise there woulda been bread lines...

[tabs]

BTW: Do U think the media is going to tell you these facts...he11 no they don't wana scare the consumers cause they might panic...

Do you think either political party is gona tell you the truth...he11 no cause they don't wana scare the consumers cause they might panic...

But read between the lines buddy....and the truth will scare the begeezus outa you...

[Superman]

Yes, it does.

[jyl]

For techweenie -

For what it's worth, investors, economists and commentators (e.g. CNBC) probably won't give much credence to a new indicator. I think the biggies will remain what they are today. GDP, ISM, new orders, initial jobless claims, consumer confidence, NY and Philly Fed, etc. The people who would be bamboozled by a newly invented indicator are probably already bamboozled.

And who knows, it might be a legitimate, useful new indicator. You never know.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by jyl
And who knows, it might be a legitimate, useful new indicator. You never know.

It's possible.

But it would reverse the pattern. In the past, when the way unemployment figures have been calculated has been changed, it always has the effect of showing lower numbers for the same situation.