What? No Recession???

[Annie]

http://www.polipundit.com/2004_07_25_polipundit_archive.html#109131299695043483

The dictionary definition of an economic "recession" is two consecutive quarters of negative annualized GDP growth. In addition, professional economists also would consider a two-quarter period of extremely weak growth, which is then bracketed by a negative quarter, to be a "recession," even though, technically, the "two consecutive negative quarters" mantra would not have been met. For example, there's no question in any economist's mind that the country experienced a recession back in 1990, even though there was only a single quarter, that year, in which negative real GDP growth was posted.

Anyway, on to the real gist of this post:

We all heard the laments regarding the "Bush recession" from liberals, partisan Democrats, and the "mainstream media," remember? And, of course, it was frustrating to have to sit there and take it. Bush inherited a rapidly-degenerating economy (that's not a statement of fault, mind you; it's just historical fact), and the complete bursting of the dot com bubble, in September 2000, made things even worse.

Well, as it turns out, there never was a recession under George W. Bush!

 

[Annie]

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls

 

[5stringJeff]

In constant dollars, 2001, the worst year of Bush's presidency, grew by .9% in spite of 9/11. The first and third quarters experienced negative growth; the first quarter could not have been affected by any Bush policy, and the third quater was, of course, when we were attacked by terrorists and the airline industry was effectively shut down.

We have had positive economic growth in every quarter since then. Recession, indeed.

 

[Annie]

In constant dollars, 2001, the worst year of Bush's presidency, grew by .9% in spite of 9/11. The first and third quarters experienced negative growth; the first quarter could not have been affected by any Bush policy, and the third quater was, of course, when we were attacked by terrorists and the airline industry was effectively shut down.

We have had positive economic growth in every quarter since then. Recession, indeed.

Pretty weird, no? I mean with all the hype?

 

[nbdysfu]

What about devaluation of US currency internationally? Is this taking that into account?

 

[freeandfun1]

What about devaluation of US currency internationally? Is this taking that into account?

The devaluation of the US currency is actually good for America. It makes our products more affordable to overseas customers.

During the last few years of the Clinton admin (1998 - 2000) the US dollar gained in strength and that shut down our exports and that is what caused the US to start exporting jobs. A weak dollar is better for exports. A strong dollar makes imports cheaper.

Again, eco 101.

 

[Hobbit]

It strikes me as odd that the only people who bring up actual information from actual econ classes are conservative, while ultra-libs only spout out how stupid those theories are and that they don't actually work. Well, I'll believe it when I see it taught in class. As for now, I'll believe Dr. Britton, seeing as how he's been teaching college econ since my dad took it.

However, I'd like to take this time to point out that the Shirefolk Party fully supports conservative fiscal policy, and, despite claims from the Nazgul party, does not offer additional funds to the fine ale or pipeweed industries. It is simply true that those companies incorporated in Shirefolk dominant lands do better, as the conservative policies of the Shirefolk policy do not place a heavy tax burden on corporations, that and the fact that Longbottom Inc. has been rated the #1 pipeweed in Middle Earth 10 years in a row by the Isengard Journal. In fact, due to stimulated economy, tax revenue increases have allowed us to offer an additional 35,000 scholarships to students attending colleges within the Shire, while another 20,000 pay for students to attend at the finest universities in Rivendell, Lorien, Gondor, and Rohan, so remember, a vote for the Shirefolk is a vote for the children, and you don't hate children, do you? I didn't think so, so vote Baggins/Gamgee in '04.

 

[freeandfun1]

It strikes me as odd that the only people who bring up actual information from actual econ classes are conservative, while ultra-libs only spout out how stupid those theories are and that they don't actually work. Well, I'll believe it when I see it taught in class. As for now, I'll believe Dr. Britton, seeing as how he's been teaching college econ since my dad took it.

I have been trying to explain econimics 101 to all the libs today.

for example, somebody tried to say today, wow, a new study shows the rick are getting poorer (if that were the case, then J Edwards speech about two American is hogwash - as Obama pointed out earlier). Well, I tried to explain that they are "poorer" most likely because they are paying more taxes. From 1998 to 2000 many small businesses lost money. However, S corps like myself, continued to pay ourselves nice salaries. But since S corps are "flow thru" taxation corps, on paper, I was "richer" the last few years as my corporate "losses" offset my payroll so I "effectivly" paid no taxes. However, since Bush was elected and since he passed his tax cuts, I now am again making a profit. Since I no longer have losses that offset my gains, I feel the taxes and therefore, I am poorer this year than I was last, even though I am making more money. That might not make sense to liberals. But it does to those that have run a business and those people make up the bulk of conservatives. Since libs rarely run a business (other than for a VERY short time so some politicians - ala JF Kerry - can say thay have), they don't understand the tax structure or the realities of P&L statements.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

The sad part is that Democrats would consider this to be bad news. That and they will say that's not true and show "proof" (like Kerry's "misery index" that only shows a few things)

The index, released last month, attempts to update a concept many of us remember from the 1970s. Back then, we simply added the unemployment rate to the rate of inflation. The higher the number, the worse things were. During the Carter administration, the Misery Index topped 20.

But, because of low inflation and a steadily improving jobs picture, today’s Misery Index is relatively low -- less than eight. So Sen. Kerry has cherry-picked several unrelated stats: median family income, college tuition, health costs, gasoline costs, bankruptcies, the home-ownership rate and private-sector job growth, and combined them into something he calls the “Middle-Class Misery Index.”

It’s not surprising that five of Kerry’s hand-picked numbers are going down. It’s also not surprising that Kerry ignored traditional barometers such as GDP and overall employment. Since those statistics, aided by several years of lower taxes, are on the rise, they show the middle class in resurgence, not misery.

And even the stats he chooses to highlight are misused. For example, he looks at family income before taxes. That makes no sense, because it ignores the big tax cuts most middle class people have enjoyed in recent years -- tax breaks passed at the urging of the Bush administration.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed050604a.cfm

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the econ 101 is too tough for them. They cant even grasp High school econ.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

When I was searching for information on Kerry's misleading misery index, I came across this image that sums it up pretty well:

 

[opewon]

However, I'd like to take this time to point out that the Shirefolk Party fully supports conservative fiscal policy, and, despite claims from the Nazgul party, does not offer additional funds to the fine ale or pipeweed industries. It is simply true that those companies incorporated in Shirefolk dominant lands do better, as the conservative policies of the Shirefolk policy do not place a heavy tax burden on corporations, that and the fact that Longbottom Inc. has been rated the #1 pipeweed in Middle Earth 10 years in a row by the Isengard Journal. In fact, due to stimulated economy, tax revenue increases have allowed us to offer an additional 35,000 scholarships to students attending colleges within the Shire, while another 20,000 pay for students to attend at the finest universities in Rivendell, Lorien, Gondor, and Rohan, so remember, a vote for the Shirefolk is a vote for the children, and you don't hate children, do you? I didn't think so, so vote Baggins/Gamgee in '04.
__________________

Well put Hobbit, but did we not forget the Gollum factor?....After all he is an independent and does own precious.....

 

[Hobbit]

It is the belief of the Shirefolk party that Gollum's stances on the destruction of evil artifacts and opinions on fine food, ale, and pipeweed put him socially closer to the Nazgul party, while his lackluster economic stances are even more conservative than the Shirefolk party. That being said, he usually steals the same number of votes from both parties. However, due to the outcome of the recent war and the Shirefolk party's role in the destruction of the One Ring, we believe the voters will find the economic issues relatively minor, thus, Gollum will steal far more votes from the Nazgul party (side note: doesn't Gollum look a little like Ross Perot...with the ears and all?). The Shirefolk party also stands to gain many votes from those concerned on foreign policy. The Nazgul party alienated Rohan, a possible ally, and still failed to defeat Gondor. The also let the One Ring slip right through their fingers. This has caused a huge decrease in voter confidence. However, in the same war, Shirefolk party policy of negotiation by example saved Helm's Deep from destruction, securing Rohan as an ally and starting an officer exchange program that allowed our own Mr. Brandybuck to ride onto the Battle at Pellinor fields and aid in the slaying of the Witch King, the Ace of Hearts in our deck of "Middle Earth's Most Wanted" cards (the Ace of Spades being Sauron). This deeply hurt the Nazgul party, as the Witch King was found to be one of the founding members. Another of our own, Mr. Took, was able to save the Steward of Gondor from his own father and was able to safeguard the throne for the returning king, thus securing them as an ally, as well. The two also opened an exchange of ideas with the Dwarves and Elves, and are rumored to have a part in renewed relationships between Dwarves and Elves. However, Gollum snuck into the forbidden pool, thus alienating Gondor, and has never even attempted to contact Rohan or the Dwarves. As for elves, Smeagol himself was quoted as saying, "We hates them!" It is clear that the Shirefolk party has had the best interests of Middle Earth at heart throughout the War on Evil, and a vote for them will help secure the future for our children, and you don't hate children, do you? Vote for Baggins/Gamgee in '04.