Just as it says. CNN reported that Bush and Co. may have inherited the recession from the previous administration. Surprised as I was that CNN (Clinton News Network) would state this, I had to admire their candor.
CNN Headline News stated that Bush may have inherited recession...
- Thread starter maluckey
- Start date
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
It's just revised GDP numbers. However I don't think they'll adjust the recession start/end dates. But what it does show is that the economy was faultering long before Bush took office.
CkG
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yes - I'm talking about the July-September quarter of 2000. Which is before Bush took office to "ruin the economy".
From the article I linked to:
CkG
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
I'm impressed that CNN: (a) found a legitimate fact to report and (b) actually reported it correctly.
So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
but he put the money back in our wallets so BOOYAH!
but yeah i woulda rather had him pay down national debt or finance a bonus war instead of letting Uncle McRich buy another pair of SUVs
but yeah i woulda rather had him pay down national debt or finance a bonus war instead of letting Uncle McRich buy another pair of SUVs
More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.Originally posted by: SuperTool
So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Most of the current defecit is related to falling tax revenues because of the economy. ANd yes there should be more fiscal restraint in DC.
I think Bush has discovered that he's "great" at spending money the gov't doesn't have! Mission accomplished! But clearly, Bush shouldn't blame others for his situation - right? That would only deepen the economic "rut" -- rather he should just spend, spend, spend his way to better fiscal health.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 69,584
- 5,031
- 126
Not really. The Fed gave you money by borowing it in your name. Kinda like a family member giving you a pile of money, except they did it by getting a mortgage on your Home.Originally posted by: charrison
More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.Originally posted by: SuperTool
So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Most of the current defecit is related to falling tax revenues because of the economy. ANd yes there should be more fiscal restraint in DC.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Actually no - it's not really like that. Keeping more of my income is not getting "a pile of money" - it's keeping. Different perspective is allOriginally posted by: sandorski
Not really. The Fed gave you money by borowing it in your name. Kinda like a family member giving you a pile of money, except they did it by getting a mortgage on your Home.Originally posted by: charrison
More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.Originally posted by: SuperTool
So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Most of the current defecit is related to falling tax revenues because of the economy. ANd yes there should be more fiscal restraint in DC.
It'd be more like allowing you to pay you less on your creditcard...but still not the quite the same because you made the individual choice to buy things on your card.CkG
Take the tax cuts back and it would have been about a $400B defecit....Most of the deficit was from reduced tax receipts and uncontrolled spending.Originally posted by: sandorski
Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 69,584
- 5,031
- 126
Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.Originally posted by: charrison
Take the tax cuts back and it would have been about a $400B defecit....Most of the deficit was from reduced tax receipts and uncontrolled spending.Originally posted by: sandorski
Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.Originally posted by: sandorski
Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.Originally posted by: charrison
Take the tax cuts back and it would have been about a $400B defecit....Most of the deficit was from reduced tax receipts and uncontrolled spending.Originally posted by: sandorski
Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Edit:
it was only 350B that got passed.
linkage
This was common knowledge in January of 2001. I'm not sure why they're repeating it now. Did anybody really think Bush caused the recession in 2001?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 69,584
- 5,031
- 126
Ok, my math is off, looks like only approx half($266 billion) was due to Tax cuts. LinkOriginally posted by: charrison
The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.Originally posted by: sandorski
Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.Originally posted by: charrison
Take the tax cuts back and it would have been about a $400B defecit....Most of the deficit was from reduced tax receipts and uncontrolled spending.Originally posted by: sandorski
Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Edit:
it was only 350B that got passed.
linkage
Good link, I was justing the total of the 2 taxcuts by 10(years) for the 100billion/year number.Originally posted by: sandorski
Ok, my math is off, looks like only approx half($266 billion) was due to Tax cuts. LinkOriginally posted by: charrison
The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Take the tax cuts back and it would have been about a $400B defecit....Most of the deficit was from reduced tax receipts and uncontrolled spending.Originally posted by: sandorski
Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...Originally posted by: charrison
He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.
Good link. I have not seen the numbers for both tax cuts. I was just dividing the total tax and dividing it by 10 years.
Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.
Edit:
it was only 350B that got passed.
linkage
Another balanced budget by 2008...we can hope anyway.
12-10-2003 U.S. Agency Revises GDP Numbers for 2000
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product.
Based on new data...showed that the economy, which had been surging ahead, hit a brick wall in the summer of 2000 with growth slowing sharply, partly as a result of the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000.
During the last recession, U.S. output fell by 0.5 percent, slightly less than the 0.6 percent previously estimated, still making the 2001 recession one of the mildest on record in terms of lost output.
"There is no major rewriting of economic history," said Steven Landefeld, head of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. "There are no significant changes to trend growth and the last recession is still mild relative to past recessions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you guys are blaming the Stock Market burst on Clinton too? Now the whole bunch has become a "It's not my fault and take no responsibilty"
"making the 2001 recession one of the mildest on record"
Funny, the News and Economists are only asking if now that the Stock Market is back over 10K if the Recession is over.
Sounds to me like the system (numbers used) that determines the barometer of the Economy and the Economists need to go back to the drawing board as evident by all these "Revisions" and "New" data. All very suspect and all Bullsh1t and I get a very distinct feeling I'm not the only one tired of the crap.
As written in here months ago, let's see how long and how much the Rich boys continue to flow money back into the Stock Market because they are scared of losing the power positions they hold now. This will test how deep they are willing to dig into their own pockets.
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product.
Based on new data...showed that the economy, which had been surging ahead, hit a brick wall in the summer of 2000 with growth slowing sharply, partly as a result of the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000.
During the last recession, U.S. output fell by 0.5 percent, slightly less than the 0.6 percent previously estimated, still making the 2001 recession one of the mildest on record in terms of lost output.
"There is no major rewriting of economic history," said Steven Landefeld, head of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. "There are no significant changes to trend growth and the last recession is still mild relative to past recessions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you guys are blaming the Stock Market burst on Clinton too? Now the whole bunch has become a "It's not my fault and take no responsibilty"
"making the 2001 recession one of the mildest on record"
Funny, the News and Economists are only asking if now that the Stock Market is back over 10K if the Recession is over.
Sounds to me like the system (numbers used) that determines the barometer of the Economy and the Economists need to go back to the drawing board as evident by all these "Revisions" and "New" data. All very suspect and all Bullsh1t and I get a very distinct feeling I'm not the only one tired of the crap.
As written in here months ago, let's see how long and how much the Rich boys continue to flow money back into the Stock Market because they are scared of losing the power positions they hold now. This will test how deep they are willing to dig into their own pockets.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter