Does Ted Cruz have Dual Citizenship?

[Mertex]

Opps you're right for a change, I got two articles confused, this one was the one I meant to post.

I don't know who wrote your article, but the NBER lists the recession of 2000 as having started in March of 2001. Since they are the ones that keep track of such information, I'm going with their information rather than your "Free Republic". There was some talk about maybe changing the date to Nov 2000 back in 2004, (link below), but here it is 2016 and it wasn't changed, so no, your article doesn't hold water. Nice try, though.


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
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001


The business cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research group, will soon decide whether or not to change the starting date of the latest recession from March 2001, its current estimated starting month, NBER spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz told CNN/Money.
She added that, while the revision could be as dramatic as moving the starting date of the recession all the way back to November 2000, it could also be less drastic -- moving the date back to February 2001, when payrolls outside the farm sector peaked, for example, according to Labor Department measures.
Committee may push back recession start date to 2000 - Jan. 22, 2004

Only problem, I guess you don't understand what constitutes a recession. The slowdown started in earnest Jan 2000 and continued throughout the year, a recession is 3 months of negative GDP growth which started Nov-Dec 2000, even if it didn't start till Mar as you say, the downhill slide is on billy boy. He went from a high of +5.6% GDP growth to a negative in his last 2 years. Of course your dear leader is slapping his self on the back for +2%, proving he ain't no wild willie.

A peak marks the end of an expansion.......and the beginning of a recession.
Definition of Peak:
The peak of the cycle refers to the last month before several key economic indicators, such as employment and new housing starts, begin to fall.

Read more: Peak Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peak.asp#ixzz3y32hF1c2



What's so hard to understand about that? Employment and new housing started to fall in March of 2001.....not Jan 2000. You're desperately trying to shift the recession over on Clinton and the facts don't support you. You need to just accept what the NBER says....they're the experts, not you.

 

[OKTexas]

Opps you're right for a change, I got two articles confused, this one was the one I meant to post.

I don't know who wrote your article, but the NBER lists the recession of 2000 as having started in March of 2001. Since they are the ones that keep track of such information, I'm going with their information rather than your "Free Republic". There was some talk about maybe changing the date to Nov 2000 back in 2004, (link below), but here it is 2016 and it wasn't changed, so no, your article doesn't hold water. Nice try, though.


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
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001


The business cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research group, will soon decide whether or not to change the starting date of the latest recession from March 2001, its current estimated starting month, NBER spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz told CNN/Money.
She added that, while the revision could be as dramatic as moving the starting date of the recession all the way back to November 2000, it could also be less drastic -- moving the date back to February 2001, when payrolls outside the farm sector peaked, for example, according to Labor Department measures.
Committee may push back recession start date to 2000 - Jan. 22, 2004

Only problem, I guess you don't understand what constitutes a recession. The slowdown started in earnest Jan 2000 and continued throughout the year, a recession is 3 months of negative GDP growth which started Nov-Dec 2000, even if it didn't start till Mar as you say, the downhill slide is on billy boy. He went from a high of +5.6% GDP growth to a negative in his last 2 years. Of course your dear leader is slapping his self on the back for +2%, proving he ain't no wild willie.

A peak marks the end of an expansion.......and the beginning of a recession.
Definition of Peak:
The peak of the cycle refers to the last month before several key economic indicators, such as employment and new housing starts, begin to fall.

Read more: Peak Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peak.asp#ixzz3y32hF1c2



What's so hard to understand about that? Employment and new housing started to fall in March of 2001.....not Jan 2000. You're desperately trying to shift the recession over on Clinton and the facts don't support you. You need to just accept what the NBER says....they're the experts, not you.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight:

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

Feel free to believe your experts, I'll believe mine.

 

[Mertex]

Opps you're right for a change, I got two articles confused, this one was the one I meant to post.

I don't know who wrote your article, but the NBER lists the recession of 2000 as having started in March of 2001. Since they are the ones that keep track of such information, I'm going with their information rather than your "Free Republic". There was some talk about maybe changing the date to Nov 2000 back in 2004, (link below), but here it is 2016 and it wasn't changed, so no, your article doesn't hold water. Nice try, though.


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
The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001


The business cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private research group, will soon decide whether or not to change the starting date of the latest recession from March 2001, its current estimated starting month, NBER spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz told CNN/Money.
She added that, while the revision could be as dramatic as moving the starting date of the recession all the way back to November 2000, it could also be less drastic -- moving the date back to February 2001, when payrolls outside the farm sector peaked, for example, according to Labor Department measures.
Committee may push back recession start date to 2000 - Jan. 22, 2004

Only problem, I guess you don't understand what constitutes a recession. The slowdown started in earnest Jan 2000 and continued throughout the year, a recession is 3 months of negative GDP growth which started Nov-Dec 2000, even if it didn't start till Mar as you say, the downhill slide is on billy boy. He went from a high of +5.6% GDP growth to a negative in his last 2 years. Of course your dear leader is slapping his self on the back for +2%, proving he ain't no wild willie.

A peak marks the end of an expansion.......and the beginning of a recession.
Definition of Peak:
The peak of the cycle refers to the last month before several key economic indicators, such as employment and new housing starts, begin to fall.

Read more: Peak Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peak.asp#ixzz3y32hF1c2



What's so hard to understand about that? Employment and new housing started to fall in March of 2001.....not Jan 2000. You're desperately trying to shift the recession over on Clinton and the facts don't support you. You need to just accept what the NBER says....they're the experts, not you.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight:

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;
* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;
* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;
* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;
* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and
* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

Feel free to believe your experts, I'll believe mine.

Seems you are trying to indicate that when the the stock markets peak...that means the beginning of a recession? A peak for the stock market means they went up. Since you don't explain yourself, it's hard to tell what you're trying to prove - or maybe you don't know what you are trying to prove. Here's something that may clear it up for you.


Using the stock market to predict the future of the economy is risky. For example, the previous peak in the Dow was in October 2007, just two months before the onset of the recession. That peak certainly didn't indicate that the economy was on solid footing.
What does the Dow's record say about the economy?

NBER is the one that calculates the dates on recessions.....
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is an American private nonprofit research organization "committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community."[1] The NBER is well known for providing start and end dates for recessions in the United States.

So tell me, who are your experts? Sarah Palin? Bill O'Reilly?


2001 Recession

The Dow peaked on January 14, 2000, closing at 11,722.98, thanks to the boom in Internet businesses. It started falling soon afterwards, hitting its first bottom of 9,796 on March 7. It bounced around until the markets closed following the terrorist attacks on September 11. When the markets reopened on September 17, 2001, the Dow dropped to 8,920.70. Threats of war drove the Dow down until October 9, 2002, when it closed at 7,286.27, a 37.8% decline from its peak. No one knew for sure if the bull market had begun until the Dow hit a higher low on March 11, 2003, closing at 7,524.06.
Dow Falls Nearly 2,000 Points Before Recovering

 

[WheelieAddict]

Repubs still call Obama "the Kenyan" when he was born in the US. Yet they endorse Cruz who wasn't born in the US and who's father comes from a communist country with links to Castro. Idiots.

 

[Jroc]

You're asking her to think? ...That's a tall order. Good luck with that

Says the idiot who supports Trump........bwahahahahaha....need I say more?

I'm a Cruz guy actually, but I'd support any Republican over the corrupt, shady, women slanderer, Political hack , that is Hillary Clinton . Why do you support corruption in government When the Clintons do it?

The only corruption associated with the Clintons is in Republican's heads. When Bill Clinton was President, the country was doing great. Unemployment was down and there were plenty of jobs, the economy was doing great. Then doofus Bush got elected, he ignored terrorist warnings and we faced the worst terrorist attack ever on our soil, then he attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (to help Cheney make lots of money - talk about corrupt)....and then the country went to shit.

Why do you insist on electing a Republican to the Presidency when they do so badly and wreck the country?

Either your incredibly delusional, or you don't give a shit how corrupt the Clintons really are. I happen to think you're delusional myself, and the FBI isn't Republican

Yeah, they are so corrupt, that is why they are free and she is running for President. The FBI, CIA and Supreme Court is not Democrat, either. Just because your party has no other job (they don't do their job) but to try and concoct scandals that don't ever stick doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe them.....in fact, the "FACTS" which most conservatives are not familiar with (since they create their own) prove that you're all just a bunch of liars.

This crazy ***** is in awe of how the Clintons can get away with corruption...the time may be running out on Hillary though. It's not about party, it's about right and wrong. The Clintons are corrupt to the core ,always have been. Why do you leftist hate rich people, unless they make their money in government, supposedly "serving the people" At least Bernie Sanders is an honest leftist. The Clintons are detestable people, living off of corruption, and crony government. They could give a shit about anybody but themselves

 

[Mertex]

Says the idiot who supports Trump........bwahahahahaha....need I say more?

I'm a Cruz guy actually, but I'd support any Republican over the corrupt, shady, women slanderer, Political hack , that is Hillary Clinton . Why do you support corruption in government When the Clintons do it?

The only corruption associated with the Clintons is in Republican's heads. When Bill Clinton was President, the country was doing great. Unemployment was down and there were plenty of jobs, the economy was doing great. Then doofus Bush got elected, he ignored terrorist warnings and we faced the worst terrorist attack ever on our soil, then he attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (to help Cheney make lots of money - talk about corrupt)....and then the country went to shit.

Why do you insist on electing a Republican to the Presidency when they do so badly and wreck the country?

Either your incredibly delusional, or you don't give a shit how corrupt the Clintons really are. I happen to think you're delusional myself, and the FBI isn't Republican

Yeah, they are so corrupt, that is why they are free and she is running for President. The FBI, CIA and Supreme Court is not Democrat, either. Just because your party has no other job (they don't do their job) but to try and concoct scandals that don't ever stick doesn't mean that everyone is going to believe them.....in fact, the "FACTS" which most conservatives are not familiar with (since they create their own) prove that you're all just a bunch of liars.

This crazy ***** is in awe of how the Clintons can get away with corruption...the time may be running out on Hillary though. It's not about party, it's about right and wrong. The Clintons are corrupt to the core ,always have been. Why do you leftist hate rich people, unless they make their money in government, supposedly "serving the people" At least Bernie Sanders is an honest leftist. The Clintons are detestable people, living off of corruption, and crony government. They could give a shit about anybody but themselves

Says the ignorant boob who voted twice for Bush/Cheney.......both who should be in prison, calling Hillary corrupt....bwahahaha. You don't know the difference between right and wrong....you support an imbecile that makes fun of the handicapped ....bet not too long ago you were up in arms about someone saying something unkind about Palin's down syndrome son....and now you think it is okay for someone to ridicule a handicap person. You're as vile and twisted as Trump, defending and supporting that evil crass person just shows your very own character.