http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0033088.cfmRevised Stats May Mean 2001 Recession Didn't Happen
Newly revised Commerce Department figures suggest that there may never have been a 2001 recession. The new view of the past few years is tied to a broad revision of the government's numbers on the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to Tim Kane, who crunches those numbers at The Heritage Foundation.
It may seem an arcane exercise, but it can affect things like, well, elections. If so, the best question about these new stats is: Who do they favor? Here are the thoughts of several experts, starting with Curt Knorr, who is with Ronald Blue and Associates.
"Newly revised Commerce Department figures show that you never really did lose your job, and that Enron didn't go belly up, and let's face it, we've turned a corner!..."
Really, how much BS do they expect people to believe?
But then again their target demo is creationists...
Of course, if they're right, than there was no "Clinton recession," either...
On edit...
oh, they're just lying again...
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business/article/0,1406,KNS_376_3078753,00.htmlWASHINGTON - The government released revised figures for the gross domestic product Friday that showed that, under one standard definition of a recession, the 2001 downturn doesn't qualify. ...
Private economists who reviewed the new data, however, said they still believe the country did suffer a recession that year, although an even milder one in GDP terms than previously believed.
The old data ... fit the often-cited definition of a recession as a downturn in economic activity represented by at least two consecutive quarters of falling GDP (and) also matched the period in which the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of recessions, said the country was in a slump, which it dated as starting in March 2001 and ending in November of that year
So bascially the Commerce Department's been lying, too.