Left Coast Isolationist
- Oct 28, 2004
- Reaction score
I think it shows that a lot of the President's economic plan is working. However, we also should keep in mind that right before he came into office, we were running a budget surplus.
Let's cut taxes incrementally, cut spending drastically, and get to where we need to be. I think President Bush is closer to right than he is to wrong, but let's inch closer to the right way
Let's all say this together...We were also in a recession. The rise in the market was on paper only. After all Enron type problems grew under Bill. Without the Bush tax cuts the economy would be much worse off
The libs and Bush haters are in a foul mood these days. Given the great economic news I would not expect them to be any other way
When libs rant how miserable the economy is I ask them if they can say Dow 12,000
Yeah, we were:Let's all say this together...
We were not in a recession in 2000.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200408040850.aspEconomists Say Recession Started in 2000
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 22, 2004; 1:34 PM
The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.
The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
"We have discussed it already and there seems to be some inclination to move the date" to some time in the last three months of 2000, said Victor Zarnowitz. He is a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's business cycle dating committee, which determines the widely accepted start and end dates to U.S. recessions.
The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001...
August 04, 2004, 8:50 a.m.
A Recession to Remember
Business-investment hemorrhaged in 2000-01 dont forget it.
It was Santayana who said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Lets hope Alan Greenspan is in a remembering frame of mind.
The Commerce Department has revised data for gross domestic product, sparking a minor debate as to whether a recession actually occurred in 2001. Either way, some now argue, if there was a recession, it was one of the mildest on record.
Thats not only utter nonsense, it shows a sad lack of short-term memory.
There was a recession in 2000-01 and it was deep. But you have to look behind the headline real GDP numbers to understand it. When you do that, you find that a very unusual set of events were at work four years ago. Events worth remembering today.
Consumer spending never once declined in the recession of 2000-01. This is because middle-class income actually increased by nearly 5 percent between 2000 and 2002, according to the latest IRS statistics. This fact runs completely counter to the Kerry-Edwards argument about a middle-class squeeze.
Still, overall individual income declined 5 percent during this period. Why? Upper-end income suffered mightily. The top tax brackets lost about 28 percent of their income, on average, largely from the stock market crash and the fall in high-paying jobs. Twelve percent of the folks who fought their way above $200,000 a year slipped below that level in 2002.
At the rarified income level of $10 million or more, those with the highest propensity to save and invest lost a stunning 63 percent of their income during 2000-02. Total capital-gains income fell by 29 percent, and dividend income dropped 17 percent. When Bill Clinton recently told the Democrats in Boston that top tax-rate payers dont need the extra money, he was sorely uninformed.
It was the investment-side of the economy that collapsed in 2000-02. But without investment funding, economic growth was null and void. For example, capital-goods investment (equipment and software) fell in eight of ten quarters between mid-2000 and the end of 2002, with six of those declines coming consecutively. Industrial production declined for six straight quarters. When measured against year-ago levels, after-tax corporate profits declined in seven straight quarters.
Surely, a 78 percent drop in the Nasdaq and a near 40 percent fall in the broader stock indexes deserve the lions share of blame for this business-investment recession. In the new economy, the stock market is essential to the investment-funding of business and the income- and wealth-creating activities of the 50 percent of the adult population called the investor class. When the market cost of capital rises sharply, as it did in 2000-02, investment activity hemorrhages.
This is why President Bushs 2003 across-the-board tax plan aimed especially at risk-taking investors (capital gains and dividends) was brilliantly crafted. Since its passage, the stock market and the economy have emerged from a long slumber. Should the Kerry Democrats succeed in repealing Bushs investment tax incentives, the economy will rapidly retreat. ...
If the above was a response to my posting of two articles, pray tell where I said 'liberals' don't understand Econ 101 or even that I truly understand economics? I think you are painting with too broad a brush. :coffee3:You claim that liberals don't understand Econ 101, but what does that say about you?
Nothing in those articles states flat out, unquestionably, that we were in a recession in 2000. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. There are some progressive economists who want to play with this definition, but if we are talking traditional Econ 101 (as RSR continues to do in other posts), this is the definition of a recession.
Those articles are attempting to change the definition of a recession to a number of different definitions; from the quarters being nonconsecutive to measuring only investment spending, these new definitions do not hold weight.
Talk to me when you've done graduate studdies in economics. This is the way it works, not the way others tell you it works.
I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.If the above was a response to my posting of two articles, pray tell where I said 'liberals' don't understand Econ 101 or even that I truly understand economics? I think you are painting with too broad a brush. :coffee3:
Jeez. And people think I'm an asshole.I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.
I was referring to RSR. People shouldn't listen to what you say anymore.
Your assessment may be correct, however at least people can read, understand, and agree/disagree, since I bother to use quotes that make it clear.I think you believe people listen to what you say. It wasn't in regards to you, just because you (which I believe to be one of the most uneducated people on this messageboard) say.
I was referring to RSR. People shouldn't listen to what you say anymore.
Actually, we still are ... if you look at statistics that are not manipulated by the Federal Government. I suggest you check out www.shadowstats.com. I actually have a subscription and use it for my macroeconomic data and in making investment decisions.Yeah, we were:
That's nice, but do you really think it's an appropriate measure? What was the deficit on the day Bush took office... SIX (not 4) years ago?
Sad but true.Actually, we still are ... if you look at statistics that are not manipulated by the Federal Government. I suggest you check out www.shadowstats.com. I actually have a subscription and use it for my macroeconomic data and in making investment decisions.
According to John Williams, US GDP has been slightly negative since Q4 '04 (official reported GDP was 3.4%). Q2 of '06 was -0.99% (official reported GDP was 3.51%). The recession began in Q4 '00 with a -0.04% and ran for 14 quarters, ending in Q4 '04 (thanks to an extremely loose monetary policy). The lowest GDP number in that time period according to Williams was -3.25%. The largest disparity between Williams' GDP calculation and the official GDP during this period was 4.50% in Q2 '06. Let me be clear that these GDP numbers shenanigans have been taking place for a couple of decades. But the cheating does seem to be getting worse as time goes on.
It is also interesting to note that the US has been really goosing the money supply since the mid 90's ... averaging over 11% for 2001 and 2002. We are back up in the 9% range again over the last year.
Yes, it is amazing to think that with the needed tax cuts and an extremely loose monetary policy (and loose credit) that has been goosing the M3 money supply by an average of over 8% this decade, that we would have negative GDP growth (albeit slightly negative). But this is what happens when you have out of control spending, years of debt building up, a much larger deficit than what is being admitted, and record trade deficit and current account deficit numbers. Just imagine what is going to happen when we can no longer sway foreigners into picking up their share of financing $3.5 billion of debt per day. And no liberals, the answer is not more taxes.
Brian (A conservative wondering if there are any left)
In fairness, Bush really didn't run as a conservative, rather as a 'compassionate conservative', we interpreted that in our own way. Now we know. :coffee3: Problem for him was 9/11, that really caused a huge problem economically, not to mention emotionally. While he dealt initially better than I would have hoped, the 'compassionate conservative' seems to be progressive writ large + war and ensuing expenditures. There's the 3 trillion more.Bush has done a decent job with National Security and a few other issues, but the National Debt is not one of them. When Bush took office the National Debt was $5.6 trillion. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521 Now it is almost 8.6 trillion! http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I am a conservative. I vote Republican. But by any measure, Bush's deficit spending performance has been very poor. During his time in office, the Feds have overspent by an average of $500 billion per year. What's the old saying? "A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." When Lyndon Johnson refused to actually pay for the Vietnam War and ran large deficits instead, the result was "stagflation," inflation, and ultimately recession. From what I have read, inflation got so bad during Nixon's term after Johnson that he even tried price controls. We cannot overspend by the magnitude allowed by Bush and not pay for it big time somewhere down the road. There is no free lunch, we should know that by now.
Bush ran up the debt on Iraq and with tax cuts. As far as I've been able to ascertain, he is the ONLY leader in history... not just in U.S. history... who has cut taxes in wartime. He also signed into law huge tax benefits for oil companies and companies who move offshore. China now owns our debt and our trade deficit is a shame.In fairness, Bush really didn't run as a conservative, rather as a 'compassionate conservative', we interpreted that in our own way. Now we know. :coffee3: Problem for him was 9/11, that really caused a huge problem economically, not to mention emotionally. While he dealt initially better than I would have hoped, the 'compassionate conservative' seems to be progressive writ large + war and ensuing expenditures. There's the 3 trillion more.