Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Show me your "official" papers that say when the economy "officially" started and when it "officially" stopped.

<a href='http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html</a>


George W. Bush is flat out irresponsible.

When he entered office and the federal government was running surpluses, he claimed we needed to cut taxes because the federal government had too much money.

Actually, I think you're irresponsible SF. If you can't connect the dots between all the data, then you shouldn't be commenting.

First, Clinton inherited a strong economy. Bush Sr. had a typical consolidation but at the wrong time, and his stoic personality probably did him in. But, Clinton got the windfall.

Clinton's taxes were fine. They were the right thing w/ a strong economy. Unfortunately, Clinton (and the repubs) just spent most of the surplus on pork. The gov't only "shrunk" because of converting civil servants to contractors. That in itself probably had long term costs.

But, all those wonderful jobs that "Clinton created" weren't permanent. That's where your analysis fails. First, many were built on false earnings. Worldcom, Enron, Tyco...those are further conseques of the deceit. I would think you could piece this together. Furthermore, the suppliers to these firms staffed up, to meet the expected demands. That's more jobs.

Then there is the obvious dot.com crashes. Plenty of jobs lost in the speculation of the "new economy".

As for your nber data...big whoop. The recession was a lagging indicator. Check out the stock market decline from early 2000. As I mentioned before, I had a colleague telling me the troubled economy was Bush's fault...BEFORE the 2000 election. That mantra got started early b/c folks knew the economy was in bad shape.

And the reason it was in bad shape is because Clinton loved the positive press it brought him.

Bush meanwhile inherited the dot.com failures, the terrorist attacks, a war, and a new Marshall plan in the middle east. PLUS he inherits the outsourcing dilemma, that no one minded when jobs were plentiful. This is not a new thing, and folks in the US have got to learn that not every trend in the world will favor them. Funny how the liberals preach that...until it's election time.

Bush's tax cuts were also the right thing. He has staved off a real glitch to the economy, one that would potentially rival what Carter did in the 70's.

Clinton was like having your teenage kid throw a huge party when you're gone for the weekend. Bush is like an adult that has to clean up the mess, fix the holes in the wall and clean out the overflowing toilets.

Just manifesting my inferiority complex. Don't mind me.

signed,

Sir King Message Board

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Show me your "official" papers that say when the economy "officially" started and when it "officially" stopped.

<a href='http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html</a>


George W. Bush is flat out irresponsible.

When he entered office and the federal government was running surpluses, he claimed we needed to cut taxes because the federal government had too much money.

Actually, I think you're irresponsible SF. If you can't connect the dots between all the data, then you shouldn't be commenting.

Tax cuts in the face of historic deficits are irresponsible, especially when tax rates have so little to do with the strength of the economy.

Quote:First, Clinton inherited a strong economy.&nbsp;

Not as strong as it was when he left.

Quote:Bush Sr. had a typical consolidation but at the wrong time, and his stoic personality probably did him in.&nbsp; But, Clinton got the windfall.

22 million jobs were the windfall. All that happened under Clinton.

Quote:Clinton's taxes were fine.&nbsp; They were the right thing w/ a strong economy.&nbsp; Unfortunately, Clinton (and the repubs) just spent most of the surplus on pork.&nbsp; The gov't only "shrunk" because of converting civil servants to contractors.&nbsp; That in itself probably had long term costs.

George the Dumber is the Mother of All Spenders. Not my words, either: Try the National Review.

<a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-derugy072803.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...erugy072803.asp</a>

Quote:But, all those wonderful jobs that "Clinton created" weren't permanent.&nbsp; That's where your analysis fails.&nbsp; First, many were built on false earnings.&nbsp; Worldcom, Enron, Tyco...those are further conseques of the deceit.&nbsp; I would think you could piece this together.&nbsp;

Piece *what* together?

It was *Enron* giving *Bush* $800,000 for his gubernatoral and presidential campaigns. It was *Enron* offering its corporate jets to Bush as his team flew around Florida scrambling to make sure they beat Gore. If Gore got any Enron money, it was chump change. You think Enron loved Bill Clinton?

If you are looking for someone to take out your frustrations on when it comes to the excesses of the past few years, then you ought to start with your own congressman, Mike Oxley.

He is a complete tool of big corporations. He basically led the way to undo regulations that had stood since the Depression to protect us from accounting fraud, from usury, . Seriously, if you want to pin it all on one guy, you man is Oxley. I'm not making this up:

<a href='http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SROXLEY' target='_blank'>http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/s...ategory=SROXLEY</a>

Quote:Clinton was like having your teenage kid throw a huge party when you're gone for the weekend.&nbsp; Bush is like an adult that has to clean up the mess, fix the holes in the wall and clean out the overflowing toilets.

In reality, Bush is like a frat boy away at college, running up a $100,000 credit card debt on beer, booze, women and bail money -- money his parents will never be able to repay.

Can I see the reciept? :goldie:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Quote:First, Clinton inherited a strong economy. 

Not as strong as it was when he left.

On the contrary, even your nber data show that a recession is defined as 2 consecutive qtrs of a declining economy. Therefore, the recession that was announced in Mar of 2001, had its roots in Sep of 2000.

Moreover, much of the early 2000 numbers are shown to be fraudulent. The stock market plummet (starting around Apr 2000) are more representative as folks started getting out of the bubble.

Quote:

Quote:Bush Sr. had a typical consolidation but at the wrong time, and his stoic personality probably did him in.&nbsp; But, Clinton got the windfall.

22 million jobs were the windfall. All that happened under Clinton.

Once again, how many of those jobs were, by definition, temporary? as they were part of the dot.com hype? Remember, "Irrational exuberance?"

And how about the pre-election conversations that the economy was in decline?

And if you really want a debate, how much of this was due to a republican congress? and largely republican gubenatorial presence? How about welfare reform, which the republicans truly forced on WJC?

Clinton didn't get it all wrong, but don't be so petty as to blame an inherited recession on 50 days of GWB.

As for Oxley...don't forget Sarbanes is the lead name on that act. And don't blame me because I voted against Sarbanes. :wave:

And when you blast GWB's spending, can you please address the topics like the war, loss of the WTC, and demand for increased homeland security? Making vague accusations w/o looking more deeply is the sort of sloppy scholarship that I would expect from Owens Comm College...or Ohio State.

"when you blast GWB's spending, can you please address the topics like the war, loss of the WTC, and demand for increased homeland security? Making vague accusations w/o looking more deeply is the sort of sloppy scholarship that I would expect from Owens Comm College...or Ohio State."

Wasn't this thread on John Kerry?

Sloppy scholarship? Which community college did you attend?

DrTorch Wrote:On the contrary, even your nber data show that a recession is defined as 2 consecutive qtrs of a declining economy. Therefore, the recession that was announced in Mar of 2001, had its roots in Sep of 2000.

The economy was growing through March, 2001.

Quote:And when you blast GWB's spending, can you please address the topics like the war, loss of the WTC, and demand for increased homeland security?&nbsp; Making vague accusations w/o looking more deeply is the sort of sloppy scholarship that I would expect from Owens Comm College...or Ohio State.

<a href='http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-03bud.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-03bud.htm</a>

These guys are liberal, but they are citing the Congressional Budget Office:

[i]Yet the cost of war, though by no means trivial, is responsible for only a small share of the deficits we face. The President’s tax cuts are a much more significant cause. Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism — including the action in Afghanistan — are counted as “war costs,