Help me answer these questions on economy, * and 9/11:

[thereismore]

pukes say the economy went into a tailspin after 9/11 - not *'s fault.
That's not really true because * admitted himself that the recession started already in March 2001, right after he was installed. Which brings me to this question. I know that * is largely responsible for the bad economy (tax cuts, war expenses, expanded government-DHS).
But how do you explain that the turnaround happened in March 2001 when * really had no time to screw things up just yet? I mean, the tax cuts were not felt yet and the war wasn't started yet. Did Clinton do anything to cause the economy to fizzle in March 2001?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. It's called revisionist history, get used to it!

[rzemanfl]

2. Anticipation, the Supreme Court had annointed an ass and the

stock market wiseguys got out. The stock market bubble burst, to be replaced by the Federal Reserve driven housing bubble that will burst big time soon. Reserve a spot under a nearby bridge now and beat the rush.

[acmejack]

3. rzemanfl nailed it!

The real estate market is soon to fall, in fact just as soon as the Barrel of oil is valuated using the Euro or some other currency (not USD) we are off for a real ride. If you like scary rides, this one is for you...

[DemInDistress]

8. acme....you nailed it also

when oil producing countries start receiving payment for that oil in EURO'S not the USD,say Good-Bye to the happy days America once enjoyed

One more thing..Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently stopped accepting US dollars,while he doesn't accept Euro's now either Chavez is bartering his oil sales in exchange for good/services and that pisses off the Whitehouse...

[donkeyotay]

4. Near as I can follow your question

During the campaign, near the end of 2000, Bush repeatedly brought up that there was a recession. He was afraid Clinton wouldn't get credit for it. Whatever, whenever that "recession" was, on today's terms it would be called "a soft patch."

However, by the fall of 2001, the market was definitely teetering. Bush can thank his lucky trifecta that 911 happened because otherwise he would have sent the market in a swan dive off the high board into the shallow end of the pool if he had reveal the Enron saga without a perfectly good excuse to run the printing presses.

PS - I'm not an economists, although I like to play one.

[ComerPerro]

5. Actually, some Bush loyalists will tell you

that the economy went bad in 2000 (Clinton's fault), then Bush fixed it, then it went bad after 9/11.

Talk about delusional...

[tritsofme]

12. Remove both "Clinton's fault" and "Bush fixed it" and you're right.

The economy was slowing down in 2000.

In Q3 2000 GDP retracted, expanded in Q4, retracted again in Q1 2001, expanded again Q2 2001, retracted again in Q3 2001, and we have had continued expansion ever since.

Using the strictest definition we never actually entered into a recession in 2000-2001 if you define it as two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth.

It wasn't really anyone's fault, and nobody fixed it, it was the business cycle at work.

However Bush surely did not use fiscal policy to the advantage of regular Americans, and as we all know used the downturn as cover to loot the treasury to the rich.

[BillZBubb]

15. You are DEAD WRONG. This is right wing BULLSHIT!!!!!

GDP did NOT retract in Q3 2000 unless you use some Busholini revisionist (modified) version of GDP. Using the standard and accepted numbers, GDP continued to grow into 2001.

[tritsofme]

18. These are the standard, accepted, and official numbers

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr

And that's just the way it is.

[chknltl]

6. Enron helped in this

Even while Clinton was still in office but after the election which brought the neocons to power, Enron was ramping up its robbery of the American public, remember the "rolling blackouts" in California during this period. My impression of this was one similar to people robbing unprotected shops during the California riots only this time it was the wealthy robbing the middle class and the poor. This time the robbers knew the law was gonna look the other way because the sheriff was on their side. I am no economist but that is when I first became aware of our economy going into its slide.

[EVDebs]

7. Bush Admin hasn't created a net new job since he took office !

The economy needs at least 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep pace with population growth. If you review BLS data we're short about 1.5 million jobs already, and now with GM's announcement things will get worse.

Bush's championing of Outsourcing has made him a hit in New Delhi, not in New Haven...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Take a look at the interest rate change for 1999-2000 on the...

...Federal Reserve website (Greenspan), and then look at the change in gasoline prices for the same period.

Notice anything?

[left is right]

10. verbally trashing the economy throughout the campaign season

Tell a lie often enough it will be accepted as the truth

[BillZBubb]

11. Greenspan is the villain

The recession began in late March 2001--PERIOD. Not before. The economy was growing until that time. Idiotic interest rate hikes by rightwing mole Alan Greenspan slowed economic growth considerable through 2000--just what the Repugs wanted to do to get the Dems out of the White House. Add the pre-election oil price hike arranged by Bush's Saudi allies and you've got the reason for the slowdown.

Also, you need to remember that an economic downturn must last at least 6 months BEFORE it is a recession. So Chimpy really had until October 2001 to do something to help the economy. But, instead of doing what was necessary, he pushed tax cuts for the rich which did absolutely nothing to help economic growth. Had he put in place a real stimulus package in his first 100 days, no recession.

The Clinton administration had an admirable economic record. They did nothing to bring on the recession. Their policies worked. Busholini's continue to fail miserably.

[tritsofme]

13. See post 12

the downturn started in late 2000.

[BillZBubb]

16. I saw it. You are wrong.

Check NBER for the real information, not the right wing "doctored" GDP.

[tritsofme]

17. I'm sorry, I didn't know the Bureau of Economic Analysis was "RW doctored"

GDP.

I think I'll stick with them.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr

[BillZBubb]

21. Too bad you didn't know that. I thought most people did.

They changed certain parameters in the model in 2002 to make it seem like the recession started under Clinton. Even then they couldn't pull it off. Yes, they fiddled with the model. This is common knowledge in the economic community.

From a news story at that time:
"The Bureau of Economic Analysis told us this week they made a small mistake back in 2000. The BEA gave us revised GDP numbers all the way back to 1929. According to the new figures, Q3 of 2000 had negative GDP of 0.5% instead of the reported +0.6%. They are evidently removing the effects of hedonic pricing of computers as they now believe it might "distort" actual GDP numbers."

I'm sure you're happy with the right wing numbers though. I know you trust the government intelligence from the Bush regime. PUKE!

[tritsofme]

22. Revising numbers going back years

is not at all uncommon.

Even so, anemic growth of 0.6% in Q3 2000 was an indicator of the economic slow down to come.

[corbett]

14. 9/11 Was Cheney's Baby - NOT A Real Terrorist Attack

All the proof you need is avaiable for download from the bottom of the following page:

http://www.reopen911.org/free_dvd.htm

[leftofthedial]

19. remember the "pie-hole factor"?

beginning during the primaries in 2000, every time the bushturd opened its mouth, the market would drop 10 - 100 points. Every time. This continued pretty much up until the invasion of Iraq.

[Sparkly]

20. Complete bullshit.

The phenomenal rate of growth we saw in the 90s SLOWED in 2000/2001, as was predicted -- but there was certainly no crisis. Remember how the Chimp took office bragging about the surplus, as if he'd created it, and claiming everybody had overpaid? "It's your money," etc? (Despite the fact that there was still a huge debt.)

9/11 took a toll on some industries for a period of time, but that's even more reason NOT to impose such a STUPID economic policy. "Everything's great, we've got surpluses, you overpaid, time for TAX CUTS" suddenly became "Everything's terrible, we've inherited a recession, we need stimulus, time for TAX CUTS!"

We heard "The recession will be short-term and shallow, not deep." We heard "Tax cuts increase revenues." We heard new versions of "trickle-down," recast as "Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?" and "The more PRODUCTIVE people in society deserve more back, as they pay more in."...

9/11 had the whole country willing to unite, AND willing to sacrifice. People donated to the Red Cross, sold flags made out of safety pins on Ebay, put ribbons on their cars, and sought some leadership. It seemed everybody was saying, "Tell us what to do to pitch in for our country, and we'll do it!"

And the answer was, "Support the president."

Imagine if the answer had been, "Conserve oil." Imagine if the answer had been, "Support a 5% reduction in the tax cuts for the top 2%." Imagine if the answer had been, "Stop corporate outsourcing." There were so many options, and BushCo chose the very worst of them, right down the line.

THEY are responsible for this economy, but they've got an excuse for everything. And "9/11" is their favorite. They took records in progress and turned them into records in decline. They stopped investing in the things that lift people up and increase revenues (job training, urban development, head start, you name it) to give the money wrapped up in a bow to the wealthiest, who feel it only as digits in their portfolio and do nothing for the economy.

In short, they're selfish powermongers who dupe gullible, shortsighted idiots.