Federal Budget Deficit Swells, amid record revenues

uscitizen said:
I am talking about bush supporting posters and co workers.
And of course Fox news at the time.
Click to expand...

Ok.... I gotta call for a link to the Fox news saying that, because I seriously doubt any major news media outlet was saying we were not in a recession.

Again, WHY would the Reps deny something that they could blame on Clinton?
 
You got me SF, I guess becuase it started dropping right after Bush was elected and bush being elected just could not be the reason.
I remember it well.
 
uscitizen said:
You got me SF, I guess becuase it started dropping right after Bush was elected and bush being elected just could not be the reason.
I remember it well.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... say what? The recession began in the third quarter of 2000, the market began its drop in April of 2000....

A recession is not technically declared until after two quarters of negative GDP growth. It was technically declared in March of 2001.... because the third and fourth quarters of 2000 were negative.... as was the first quarter of 2001. Bush didn't take office until when?... January 20, 2001.

Which means he was in office 2 of the 9 months.... with no time to effect the economy in any significant way.

so apparently your memory is not so good on this issue.... no matter how well you think you recall it.
 
Superfreak said:
Ummm.... say what? The recession began in the third quarter of 2000, the market began its drop in April of 2000....

A recession is not technically declared until after two quarters of negative GDP growth. It was technically declared in March of 2001.... because the third and fourth quarters of 2000 were negative.... as was the first quarter of 2001. Bush didn't take office until when?... January 20, 2001.

Which means he was in office 2 of the 9 months.... with no time to effect the economy in any significant way.

so apparently your memory is not so good on this issue.... no matter how well you think you recall it.
Click to expand...


Actually, SF, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the long-standing arbiter of when a recession is said to have begun issued a report in November of 2001 stating quite matter of factly that, well, here's what they said:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology
Click to expand...

So, according to the NBER, which is widely regarded as the authority on these matters, the recession began in March of 2001, not in 2000.

US is off a bit. The Republicans were arguing (and presumably would still argue) that Bush "inherited" a recession and that the recession began in 2000 instead of acknowledging that the recession began after he took office.


http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Actually, SF, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the long-standing arbiter of when a recession is said to have begun issued a report in November of 2001 stating quite matter of factly that, well, here's what they said:



So, according to the NBER, which is widely regarded as the authority on these matters, the recession began in March of 2001, not in 2000.

US is off a bit. The Republicans were arguing (and presumably would still argue) that Bush "inherited" a recession and that the recession began in 2000 instead of acknowledging that the recession began after he took office.


http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/
Click to expand...

You are kind Dungheap, US is way off.

My understanding was the recession started in March 2001. The stock market peaked in March 2000 and started on a downward trend from there. If you google back articles from that time there was a lot of talk about Gore or Bush having to deal with a declining economy.

Antedotally (sp) I used to work in Silicon Valley in real estate brokerage and I did my biggest lease deal ever in December 2000. A year or so later when this dot.com company realized they had taken way too much space the CEO told me hadt it taken another month to sign the lease they would not have done it because they were having internal discussions about the declining economy and whether they should take so much space.

When taking a step back I think most viewing this from a non political or non-partisan perspection realize that a new President can do very little regarding the economy 45 days into office. It will be the same for our next President. They won't be blamed for inheriting a declining economy they willl be judged based on how the economy responds going forward based on their policies.
 
cawacko said:
You are kind Dungheap, US is way off.

My understanding was the recession started in March 2001. The stock market peaked in March 2000 and started on a downward trend from there. If you google back articles from that time there was a lot of talk about Gore or Bush having to deal with a declining economy.

Antedotally (sp) I used to work in Silicon Valley in real estate brokerage and I did my biggest lease deal ever in December 2000. A year or so later when this dot.com company realized they had taken way too much space the CEO told me hadt it taken another month to sign the lease they would not have done it because they were having internal discussions about the declining economy and whether they should take so much space.

When taking a step back I think most viewing this from a non political or non-partisan perspection realize that a new President can do very little regarding the economy 45 days into office. It will be the same for our next President. They won't be blamed for inheriting a declining economy they willl be judged based on how the economy responds going forward based on their policies.
Click to expand...
Not only that but employment leveled off, and production dropped sharply in the months before the "employment peak" (all can be seen by the charts on the link provided). The slowdown began during the election year, about halfway through it. It's like people saying we are in recession when growth is still happening. We aren't, although we are definitely slowing down. If there is growth at all it is not yet a recession, but the people can already feel a sting.

Many believe that the recession will be traced back to the beginning of the slowdown, like Janszen here in this article:

http://www.itulip.com/Recession2000.htm

These are people who take a bit longer view, that don't solely look at the times of employment downturns but seek the beginning that the economy was reacting to when it began to slow and finally to turn downwards...

This also ignores that NBER changed the way they valuate the beginning of a recession and using the new methodology the recession started in the last quarter of 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/

If you read this story they were considering re-reporting the dates after changing methodology in 2003, they later decided to continue with the published report and it that future recessions that would be reported this way, however adding in the GDP measure it would change the recession period to include that last quarter of 2000.
 
Superfreak said:
Ummm.... say what? The recession began in the third quarter of 2000, the market began its drop in April of 2000....

A recession is not technically declared until after two quarters of negative GDP growth. It was technically declared in March of 2001.... because the third and fourth quarters of 2000 were negative.... as was the first quarter of 2001. Bush didn't take office until when?... January 20, 2001.

Which means he was in office 2 of the 9 months.... with no time to effect the economy in any significant way.

so apparently your memory is not so good on this issue.... no matter how well you think you recall it.
Click to expand...

that was my argument at the time Damo.
I remember well.
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, SF, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the long-standing arbiter of when a recession is said to have begun issued a report in November of 2001 stating quite matter of factly that, well, here's what they said:



So, according to the NBER, which is widely regarded as the authority on these matters, the recession began in March of 2001, not in 2000.

US is off a bit. The Republicans were arguing (and presumably would still argue) that Bush "inherited" a recession and that the recession began in 2000 instead of acknowledging that the recession began after he took office.


http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/
Click to expand...


Ok.... here is their definition....

"A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade."

So they changed the definition of a recession after decades of using the same one? The above makes little sense... because industrial production, employment, real-income and trade are ALL lagging indicators in the economy.

All of them REACT to a declining economy. You don't cut production during a period of growth, you cut it when times are tough. You don't drop income levels in periods of prosperity, you cut them when times are tough. You don't fire employees on a large scale unless... you guessed it, times are tough.

This definition of theirs is hardly the standard used by economists. GDP growth has been the standard for decades.

But even using their definition... the recession according to them began in March of 2001. Just exactly what is it that Bush is to have done in that first month in office that caused the economy to turn down?

While you are at it... please explain how three quarters of negative GDP growth was part of an expansion.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok.... here is their definition....

"A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade."

So they changed the definition of a recession after decades of using the same one? The above makes little sense... because industrial production, employment, real-income and trade are ALL lagging indicators in the economy.

All of them REACT to a declining economy. You don't cut production during a period of growth, you cut it when times are tough. You don't drop income levels in periods of prosperity, you cut them when times are tough. You don't fire employees on a large scale unless... you guessed it, times are tough.

This definition of theirs is hardly the standard used by economists. GDP growth has been the standard for decades.

But even using their definition... the recession according to them began in March of 2001. Just exactly what is it that Bush is to have done in that first month in office that caused the economy to turn down?

While you are at it... please explain how three quarters of negative GDP growth was part of an expansion.
Click to expand...


Please, SF. The NBER has been the widely accepted arbiter of business cycles for quite some time now. I don't really need to argue this point with you.

And I never blamed Bush for any fucking recession. All I said, was that your assertion that the recession began earlier does not comport with the widely agreed-upon authority on the matter, nor does it comport with the Republican claim that Bush "inherited a recession."
 
Dungheap said:
Please, SF. The NBER has been the widely accepted arbiter of business cycles for quite some time now. I don't really need to argue this point with you.

And I never blamed Bush for any fucking recession. All I said, was that your assertion that the recession began earlier does not comport with the widely agreed-upon authority on the matter, nor does it comport with the Republican claim that Bush "inherited a recession."
Click to expand...

Ok... you are talking about when a recession is DECLARED vs. when the recessionary times began. I already stated that the technical start was in March of 2001. But the negative GDP growth and decline in the economy began long before that.

If you want to play semantics and say Bush didn't inherit a recession... fine.

He inherited a really shitty economy. Is that better for you?
 
Dungheap said:
Please, SF. The NBER has been the widely accepted arbiter of business cycles for quite some time now. I don't really need to argue this point with you.

snip!
Click to expand...

Ummm, you're arguing with a guy who disputes the conclusions on climate change from the IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, and NASA.
 
Desh said:
So what will the next president be inheriting from this smuck?
Click to expand...

Trillions of dollars of debt, a war that seems like we'll never see the light at the end of the tunnel on, and a mentally starving electorate wishing for something positive to happen out of our government.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok... you are talking about when a recession is DECLARED vs. when the recessionary times began. I already stated that the technical start was in March of 2001. But the negative GDP growth and decline in the economy began long before that.

If you want to play semantics and say Bush didn't inherit a recession... fine.

He inherited a really shitty economy. Is that better for you?
Click to expand...


No, SF, I'm not playing semantic games with you. The recession was not declared in March of 2001, it began in March of 2001. Once again, from the link:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.
Click to expand...

And yes, stating that Bush inherited a less than stellar economy is much preferable to the claim that Bush "inherited a recession" simply because the former is arguably true while the latter is demonstrably false.

Facts matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top