CNN Headline News stated that Bush may have inherited recession...

[maluckey]

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
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.

I always believed that it was the general consensus. A recovering economy definately is a feather in his cap. Hopefully we can sustain the recovery.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Here is a story on it.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
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

If by "long before" you mean a few months, I'd agree with you there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
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

If by "long before" you mean a few months, I'd agree with you there.

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:

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."

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

 

[dirtboy]

I'm impressed that CNN: (a) found a legitimate fact to report and (b) actually reported it correctly.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.

 

[ReiAyanami]

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

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.

More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.

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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison


More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.

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.

And the Fed has been squandering our funds like nobodies business

 

[DealMonkey]

"Everyone has the potential to be "great"...it's just that they need to find what their "greatness" is. To continue to blame other's for your situation only deepens one's rut. Seek help, seek change, seek anything that will pull you from the "rut", so you can set yourself back on the road to greatness." - CkG

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]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.

More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.

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.

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

So he made it fall even more with his taxcuts while jacking up spending. Surprise surprise, we have a deficit.

More cash is staying safely in my wallet and not being squandered by the fed.

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.

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.

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 all 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

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

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.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

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.

Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

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.

Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.

The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.


Edit:

it was only 350B that got passed.

linkage

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yes - I'm talking about the July-September quarter of 2000. Which is before Bush took office to "ruin the economy".

Yep, I think we are all in agreement then. Just about the time the country realized Bill Clinton wouldn't be president forever and that the prosperity we were all enjoying was coming to an end, the economy started going to crap. Yep, July-September of 2000 as more and more it looked like Bush would win the election... investors started getting the hell out of the market while the getting was good, these kinds of moves pretty much sealed the fate of the wonderful and prosperous IT boom most of us were enjoying, thousands of us lost our jobs WELL before 9/11 played out, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Dari]

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]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

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.

Nope. The Deficit would be near $0.

The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.


Edit:

it was only 350B that got passed.

linkage

Ok, my math is off, looks like only approx half($266 billion) was due to Tax cuts. Link

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He certainly didn't inherit a 500B deficit.

He did inherit falling tax revenue from a faultering economy....

Then proceed to cut taxes until a $500b deficit appeared...

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.

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.

The 2003 tax cut was worth 550billion and spread over 8-10 years. Please explain how your math works.


Edit:

it was only 350B that got passed.

linkage

Ok, my math is off, looks like only approx half($266 billion) was due to Tax cuts. Link

Good link, I was justing the total of the 2 taxcuts by 10(years) for the 100billion/year number.

Another balanced budget by 2008...we can hope anyway.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.