Of course it's not. Democrats blamed W for every day of his eight year term, six months before he went into office, even before he was elected when the recession started under Clinton,
The Great BUSH recession began Dec 2007, Clinton was NOT president then.
So if I can show you quotes by Democrats from before that, you'll call them ignorant mother fuckers because you as you said believe in "truth" and that's "truth?"
Kazzer, there was no recession under Clinton...
www.nber.org
Do you ever stop kazzing?
Ever???
In October 2008, I posted a column ("Robert Rubin's Free Ride") complaining that the economic tailspin then underway had done astonishingly little to...
slate.com
LOL
Who knows how demented you have to be to think that means there was a recession under Clinton when there wasn't?
www.nber.org
I realize you don't know this because you're stupid, but you're banking on an actually extremely narrow argument.
- The common definition in economics for a recession is 2 out of 3 negative quarters. This is commonly used as a standard, but only for laypeople such as yourself. There is no economic theory behind it. It just makes a simple chart for simpletons. You know, you.
- The 3Q of 2000 was originally negative which means the recession started then. But it was revised to be a tiny bit positive, which got Clinton off the technical hook.
No one in economics would think that tiny adjustment from negative to tiny positive had any actual economic meaning.
You really just keep showing how ignorant you are despite all the bluster
LOL
You can't kaz your way out of this. I don't know what the original GDP was before it was revised, but regardless of what 2000Q3 GDP was, that period is now:
2000Q1: 1.5
2000Q2: 7.5
2000Q3: 0.5
2000Q4: 2.5
2001Q1: -1.1
I doubt Q4 was negative but revised to 2.5 and I'm certain Q2, at 7.5, was never negative.
So you don't have 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, which leads us to your next kaz...
The common definition in economics for a recession is 2 out of 3 negative quarters.
No, 2 out of 3 negative quarters is not the common definition in economics for a recession. At least 2
consecutive quarters of negative growth is...
Recessions are neither common nor rare. Some predictions of them prove inaccurate. Other times recessions can result in significant damage to the economy and markets.
www.jhinvestments.com
What is a recession?
A common definition is two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP, but this isn’t necessary for the economy to be in a recession. A recession just needs to be a contraction of the economy, featuring shrinking production and consumption, higher unemployment, and (sometimes) lower price levels.
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a leading economic think tank founded in 1920, is the generally recognized authority in the United States when it comes to declaring a recession. It calls a recession “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.”¹
But even that isn't the methodology employed by the NBER...
www.nber.org
Q: What is a recession? What is an expansion?
A: The NBER's traditional definition of a recession is that it is a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months. The committee's view is that while each of the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another.