In 2001 Mr Bush refered to his presidential inheritance as "A RECESSION. "Uhuh, he sure did. This is the first time in American history that a president has signed off on any stimulous package, NOT TO MENTION THREE times. Call it what you will, but I can attest to the resolute fact that I was MUCH better off after eight years under Mr Clinton than eight years of Mr. Bush .....and a turd by any other name still stinks. So when the "experts" lament the numbers game and don thier SEE NO EVIL< HEAR NO EVEIL< SPEAK NO EVIL posture, I say LIARS! LIARS LIARS. My paycheck hurts!

It's the primary reason Mr. Bush refuses to sign ANY legislation for asitsnace to those poor unemployed American folks who have lost thier jobs thanks to Mr. Bush and 14 years of republican congressional trade posturing. You see, if we allow 280,000 unemployed Americans to drop from the roles of "UNEMPLOYMENT" every 6 months, you add to a higher percentage of job gains not calculated any longer as a loss, and unemployed numbers. (good for Mr. Bush, worse for America). Now that practice alone speaks volumes about the thought process of our political arena. Numbers games are thier forte. Like Rummsfeld said, the numbers can get so confusing, they are almost meaningless. Of course that is unless you are working all week only to put every penny into the tank or on the dinner table. So like every one of us 285,000,000 Americans who actually keep America running with our hard earned paychecks, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and walks like one......IT"S A FREEKING DAMN RECESSION!

Bush will never admit that he's been a horrid mistake for not only America, but the entire world might clearly have been better off without this wooden headed pupet(master Cheney) lead around by his thin strings, stamping litterally every reckless bill the repubs, sent him. That is until 2007 when the Dems took control with such a slim majority that they were inefective from day one. Remove leiberman and Kennedy and you now have the repubs back in total control, while you do nothing constructive for Amreica and our future, and blame the Dems for not allowing you to do even more damage.

Mr. Bush stood in front of the camera during the 2000 election and blamed Bill Clinton for the record HIGH price of oil, $31.00, "They have no energy policy" and NOW.........eight years later, oil is $143.00, he stands in front of the camera and again....blames the Dems, "they won't send me meaningful legislation." That he will pass anyway. And DO NOT FORGET, HE HAS AN ENERGY POLICY, he and Mr Cheney set it up behind closed doors with the oil industry eight years ago. So I ask you, Who the hell is it that has run, is running, and hopes to continue running this country? And, folks, fellow voters, ask yourself this. When you walk away from a grocery store, drive or push your car to the gas station, walk out of a hospital, or pharmacy, the tax office, the utility company's office, auto parts store, apliance store, or even a popcorn stand, do you have a smile on your face? I sure as hell DO NOT. Be honest for once in your, over paid, sit on your lying butts, cushy forever jobs, and tell the truth. WE ARE IN A RECESSION! And, if you fools do not watch it, we'll be in another DEPRESSION. Close the borders to Corporate exodus, bring our jobs back, and tax em like you should.

Yes Mr. Bush claimes to be the master link in the chain of job creation. Forget about the 10,000,000 lost meaningful jobs, but lets talk about the 3,000,000 new minimum wage jobs. I know, I have two of them in order to keep my humble home and high fat diet(cheap hotdogs and macaroni) and worn out shoes. Every new Walmart, McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, Hardees, Culvers, and Applebees that opens gives Mr. Bush his magical Superman hero employment numbers. NAFTA was signed by Clinton, but the NAFTA he signed isn't the same NAFTA Bush and the repubs tore down and rebuilt. The corporate give-aways and tax-breaks were not a part of the NAFTA Clinton signed. The 67,000 international temp workers were increased to 240,000, Wedgie Co. Inc. could now move corp. headquarters off US soil and pay ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN CORP. TAXES. That wasn't the NAFTA Bill Clinton signed. It beggs to be told just who our president really serves. Trade numbers through our reckless agreements are fudged since the seccess numbers started rolling in. Take Corp. A, they send a train-load of raw materials to Central or South America so the Honduran workers can build our washing machines, "That's Free Trade At work" then they ship that train-load of machines back to the United States" and VIOLA!!!! Freeeeeeee TRADE WORKS!!!!!!! It's all the same.............. people, Corporate profits are in the multi thousands of percent, because the Bush crowd runs the numbers. Rummydumsfeld was right. Because if they meant anything to AMERICANS, these things would not happen. It all adds up to JOB LOSSES, CORPORATE GREED, POLITICAL CORRUPTION , ABUSE OF POWER, LIES, and finally a RECESSION IN AMERICA that if not stopped, will turn into much worse!
Oh yeah, if you are an American fed up and suffering under all these tricks, then keep McCaine out of the white house. If you like the Bush record then by all means, vote McCaine in Nov. Lord knows the repub. deserve the blame.

God Bless.

I personally feel that the dearth of peace is the bane of recession in the world currently . If we have peace than we would be able to quell speculation , we have seen how investors are now into commodities including edible their chances of ripping us off would be low . We would be effeciently use the lands which could not be tilled due to the non-exitence of peace especially in Africa ; here big countries like China & Europe could out source certain production of its edible requirements this would not only help ease down supplies but at the same time would also help in developing local economies . I am not against capitalism but the over zealous capitalists which is seeing a much widening gap between the rich and the poor should be forced to invest a certain percentage of their earned fortunes to develop infrastructure pertaining to requirements linked to food etc in the developing/third world nations .

The G7 should adopt a formula to invest and develop job opportunities globally and should adopt a target approach in which they spend a certain proportion of thier incomes on the same . This should be done in line with the burdoening requirements . With world peace this would create opportuinities for even their resources globally who would venture out to find good jobs elsewhere and would ease down pressure on their internal job demand .

Most importantly the consumption by any nation has to be linked with its progress . The more you consume ; the higher the responsibility to expedite opportunities to ease down pressure on demand by investments in alternate supply channels , investments in countries which are being siphoned every day and where poor class is growing in numbers and this investment should be ensured as a responsibility rather than a loan or even aid .

As far as CNN is concerned, they have vested interests (stock prices and advertisers) to protect. Sadly, I also have to use a lot of indie media to get accurate information like shadowstats.com, theoildrum.com, and energybulletin.net to get a clearer picture of what is taking place. There are many other interesting sites that examine energy and economic issues much better than the mainstream media currently does.

The problem for journalists is that they are left to tell a story with so many conflicting interests involved. Yes the economists say, we're optimistic about this rate change or that bit of new stimulus.. but things keep tanking. The people who are complaining (nearly everybody I know middle class or lower) are the canaries in the coal mine. The rich are getting richer or at least maintaining without too many terrible sacrifices, that is nothing new. The problem is that the the average person will not be contributing to the growth of the economy, with the mandatory exception of the oil companies.

Even the oil companies have little control over what is happening. They are responsible for the situation to the extent that we've allowed them to operate with few obstacles. Greedy corporations do exactly what they are designed to do... maximize shareholder dividends and stock price or go out of business. If energy prices reduce drastically it will only be because of demand destruction and the tanking of the economy.

Energy demand has been outpacing supply for a while now. That, more than anything, is the catalyst for what is unfolding. Here's a favorite joke of mine:

Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They're not sure what time it is, because it's dark and they can't read their watches. They think it's nearly dinner time, cause they're starting to feel hungry. But they're not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!

"It is incumbent on the media to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which means also not omitting items, or ‘interpreting’ data in a biased way in order to shape public thinking, even if they think it is for the public good that some matters are not revealed."

To which I reply: the media companies are owned by their shareholders, and it is incumbent on the media companies to deliver shareholder value. If you want "the media" to report "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..." then, if you're lucky enough to live in a free country, feel free to start your own company. If I own GE shares, then personally I'd rather its subsidiary NBC protect its brand and its profit margin– which may or MAY NOT mean "telling the whole truth"– than pursue the truth at all costs. Of course other shareholders would be free to outvote me.

This argument is really silly. Those wanting to scold the "experts" SHOULD say "Whether it's a recession or not is irrelevant– there are other important issues." Why insist on trying to convert the word "recession" into meaning something that it hasn't conventionally meant? Just so economists will be forced to come up with a brand new word to mean what "recession" USED TO mean, before all the "it FEELS LIKE one to me" types changed the word's meaning?