Bush inherited a recession ?.....What BULLSHIT.

[bush equals idiot]

Bush has got the balls to say he inherited hard times to justify his pathetic record? Almost every day there were more economic records broken when Clinton was president. Record low unemployment, record new housing starts, record job creation, record high consumer confidence index, balanced budget and on, and on, and on.

I can't remember a time in my life when there was more good news on television almost every day. And this human hemorrhoid has got the nerve to say he inherited a recession?

Give me a break. It's what he keeps saying and it just lays there. Kerry has got to insult him with these facts so hard, he goes crawling off the stage on his hands and knees.

I'm tired of this bullshit.

[RunningFromCongress]

1. Bush did inherit a recession, but that ended in March of 01

[trotsky]

3. Absolutely wrong.

The recession STARTED in March of 2001.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

7. wrong-o

the recession began in March, not ended.

only politically motivated manipulation by the bushgang's economists made it seem as though the recession was shallow and short-lived. the actual economic condition of the country has deteriorated drastically and steadily.

[phantom power]

8. Even more to the point: he's made it far, far worse

Four enormous tax cuts in the face of growing federal debt is a recipe for disaster. And he's made it perfectly clear that if he gets another four years, he'll happily keep cutting taxes.

I'd love to see Kerry bring this up in tonite's debate. Talk briefly about how much of our taxes are required to pay interest on that debt. Last I heard it was something like 30%. If Americans want to pay less tax, the best thing they could do is demand that Congress balance the budget and start paying down the national debt.

[rsdsharp]

9. Not according to the National Bureau of Economic Research

which is the official arbiter of such things. This is what the NEBR says:

The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.

Thus the recession occured wholly on the Bush watch, despite how Don Evans has tried to spin it.

[whistle]

28. Bingo! See my comment below....

[merh]

11. Yeah, the creative economist try to explain that it takes 6 months

for the recession to "happen" thus, blaming it on Clinton. Truth is the economy began to shiver and shake when the weed that would be king was "crowned" by the press in Nov of 2000. That scared the F'ck out of investors and thus, the recession and troubles began!

Inherit a recession my a**! I am so sick of their f'ckin' excuses.

[whistle]

29. Theoretically they want six months of contraction to confirm that...

...the economy isn't just taking a breather, but we certainly have had a full blown recession under GW Bush and unfortunately the conservative economists are calling any expansion of GDP recovery, but in fact this has been a jobless recovery. To hide this fact, the Bush administration and the various republican spin masters and policy makers have kicked people off unemployment rolls so they can claim that the unemployment rate of 5.4% shows healthy economic growth. The truth is that actual unemployment of discouraged workers and under-employed workers more than doubles that figure in the U.S.

If you believe Dick Cheney, he'll claim that if you participate in two focus group panels over twelve months and are paid $100.00 for your time, you are in fact self employed! Oh and be sure to report that as income otherwise you are in violation of IRS reporting requirements. These people have their heads up their own asses and each other's asses. This economy is anemic and very vulnerable and in the next four years if Bush and the republicans remain in power, we will see a redistribution of wealth on a scale never before seen in the country, not to the poor and middle class but concentrated among the wealthiest 1%.

[sandnsea]

17. Started 3/01, ended 11/01

Just a dip of a recession to boot, some economists have said it wasn't really a recession at all. Outsourcing and shifting the money to people who invested in overseas companies tanked the economy. And cutting investment in US innovation. And running up a massive deficit. Just like Reagan, wohoo!

[liberal N proud]

2. It was just a lame attempt to blame the one that all RW'nuts love to

hate: Billl Clinton

[trotsky]

4. If Bush really inherited a recession...

why was his 2000 campaign all about giving people tax cuts because the economy was so hot?

From the administration that whines about "historical revisionists," they seem to have plenty.

[msturgis524]

5. Whats worse than him saying it

is people actually believe it.

[Triana]

6. He did NOT inherit anything - recession started THREE months...

...AFTER he got in office!

Furthermore, his policies after it began were non-existent with exception of passing tax cuts for the damn rich and selling our jobs overseas and REFUSING to extend unemployment when the sh*t further hit the fan. His policies only made things WORSE!

And, after 9-11, what did The Little Weasel do to shore up the economy in the face of the disaster? NOTHING. Pass another tax cut?

I call BU$HIT on that crap and I hope to GOD Kerry calls him on that as well.

I posted someting on johnkerry.com about this, as well as about the FACT that the only wars the US ever lost were executed by REPUBLICANS, including Vietnam and Iraq - so that blows the bu$hit beleif that Republicans are better in times of war and for ntl security than Dems. WHEN did 9-11 happen? WHO was President? Wasn't a DEMOCRAT!

I think Kerry needs to give a few HISTORY lessons tonight...George Bu$h has the WORST jobs creation record since Herbert Hoover and Kerry needs to say that at LEAST 5 times tonight...along with some WAR history.

Dammit.

[underpants]

10. Great links here---this is total BS

http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/03/bush-campaign-lie-4-bush-inherited.html

http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/


The National Bureau of Economic Research, a research group that marks the dates of economic recessions and expansions, ignores GDP data when defining business cycles. It has maintained for several months that the recession did not begin until March 2001.

Though Cheney claimed that the economy had returned to growth, the NBER has not yet declared the recession has ended, and the robust 2002 GDP data on which Bush and Cheney have been relying are subject to the same dramatic revisions that the 2001 data underwent.



"The Bush administration has run out of options when it comes to the economy," said Doug Usher, a senior analyst with the Mellman Group, a Democratic political consulting firm in Washington. "Clearly they don't have a plan, so they're trying to claim things are not that bad. But people see right through that, so they're going to plan C, which is blame somebody else."

[bush equals idiot]

13. I'm with you girl.

That's a pretty neat trick if you can get way with being given the greatest surplus in history -which is now the worst deficit in history, and have the balls to blame it on the guy who gave you the surplus.

Recession my ass.

[factcheck]

14. Weeeeellll....

Sorry to say this, and you can hammer away at me if you like, but I do have more than an average understanding of economics.

There is NO way that a recession could happen within 3 months of a President taking office and have it blamed on the policies of that President.

However, one cannot simply say that Bush 'inherited' the recession as that would imply that the recession was the result of Clinton's policies. I do not believe that.

The recession was actually the direct result of an artificially buoyed economy created by a great influx of investor dollars. Now, what is interesting is that it is often claimed that new jobs are not created when taxes are higher and it is certainly claimed that Bush cut taxes below the levels of Clinton's administration.

But, how can that be? More jobs (many in new companies) were being created during Clinton's administration under HIGHER taxes? Yes. That is because consumer spending can always bolster an economy in ways that tax cuts will never be able to do.

Another caveat: don't be too quick to blame the state of the economy completely on Bush. This will created a situation where Kerry is set up for failure and cannot be easily defended when the economy does not vastly improve under his administration and, in all likelihood, it will not. At least not to the levels we saw at the end of Clinton's administration. Our country would not recover the same way from a very short period of quick growth. Because that growth is largely artificial and cannot be sustained. What we must see instead is a consistent measured growth which can be sustained for a very long period of time.

[underpants]

15. That's true

W's first bedget didn't go into effect until October (right?)

Still he can't get that nuanced now can W?

[bush equals idiot]

19. Wrong in my opinion factcheck

Take the money from the billionaires and put it in the hands of people earning $30,000 (if they're even lucky enough to be earning anywhere near that) and watch what happens to the economy.

The only thing the rich do is buy bigger yachts and put it in trusts for their kids. Then they have tax loopholes so they don't pay shit in taxes either. That's what Bush did, the economy slammed into the middle class like a wrecking ball. End of story.

[factcheck]

26. Ummmmm...

"Take the money from the billionaires and put it in the hands of people earning $30,000 ... and watch what happens to the economy."

Oooh... sorry, that is just a little too communistic for me :)

But, that is exactly what I mean by consumer spending driving the economy and not lower taxes. Lower taxes can only help somewhat. But, more consumer spending means greater revenues which far outweigh the benefit of lower taxes.

Personally, give me lower health care costs. My company pays 100% of health care premiums for our employees. If our costs dropped even 5%, we could hire a great many more people.

And our minimum salary is $30,000.

If the middle class can honestly have the money to spend, then the economy improves. But that means that there needs to be real jobs and not jobs paying minimum wage.

This is not rhetoric, this is not opinion, this is based on very real economic theories and my own experience in my company.

And, the ONLY difference between the middle class and the very wealthy is that the very wealthy simply have larger expenditures. The percentage SHOULD work out to about the same. The same percentage is spent on a car, on a house, on vacations, etc.

However, people earning $15,000 - $50,000 per year generally do not take the time to do what those earning more than that do: take advantage of the tax laws.

Have you ever considered running your own business? Not as a primary job, but as a way to eliminate (or close to it) income tax?

Run an eBay store or something. Anything. Incorporate as an S Corp. This costs $50 - $100 depending on the state and is very easy to do. You still pay your taxes the same way and only have one extra form to fill out. Then have your business pay for your car, your car insurance, your cell phone, your Internet access - anything you could reasonably consider a business expense. What happens is that all of the money that is spent on all of those bills is now NOT income and not taxable as such. Those expenses now become deductions from the income of the business which, along with other deductions should easily give you a good loss. Now take that loss and apply it against your income and you likely drive your taxable income down to a level where you are getting EVERYTHING back you paid in and possibly more.

I honestly get sick of hearing how the 'rich' don't pay taxes because they are rich.

No, many are rich because they are smart. They don't pay taxes because they are smart.

I have paid very little in taxes in years and it is all done perfectly legally. The IRS can audit me any time they want and they would find that everything is done by the books!

Imagine how much consumer spending would increase if everyone got a check for 20% of their income every April! :)

[bush equals idiot]

31. No the rich don't pay taxes

because they use loopholes. They have paper "loss" investments which are not losses at all. In fact they're created for that very purpose. If Clinton was the president for the last four years, you would still be raving about how good the economy is.

Bush is the first president in history to demand a tax cut in time of war. That part of it alone on it's face, is laughable because it was the war he chose to start. A personal revenge trip for him and nothing else. So, do you think he demanded that tax cut for helping the middle class? HA! He couldn't wait to start building the quid po quo for contributions to his campaign chest.

Now he wants to compain about how bad times were when he took office. Oooh poor baby. I'll say it again.

BULLSHIT!

[nyhuskyfan]

22. There is some debate as to whether it was ever a recession at all

At the very least, it was one of the most minor recessions in history. The economy did slow down in the second half of 2000 and into 2001 -- a natural correction after a long expansion and incredible growth. If Clinton had been in office, he could have pulled us out of the mini-recession very easily with targeted tax cuts or spending programs as a stimulus and we wouldn't have anywhere near the problems we have now.

Bush's cuts rewarded the wealthy and provided very little short term stimulus. Instead, we gutted the surplus, stayed in a slow economic period for another two years, and when the economic cycle has bounced back to a certain degree, many people have been left behind in a jobless recovery. And the economic upturn has been incredibly minute compared to what we've paid for it. If you went out and maxed out a dozen credit cards right now, then your standard of living should improve susbtantially in exchange for all that debt. Bush has maxed out our credit cards, and we've seen nothing. Only the CEO's and the millionaires can say they've benefitted, and they were all doing fine anyway.

Now, if another economic downturn hits (or an energy crisis), we have far less that we can do to fight it. There's no surplus to use for targeted tax cuts or spending.

[mxteam44]

21. Think about this though...

The tax cuts helped spur the economy by putting some extra $$$ in peoples pocktets to spend. When spending goes up, the economy strenthens. As the economy strengthens, everything else just falls into place. I think the tax cuts were the right thing to do after 9/11 to get the economy rolling again. After and event like 9/11, the economy would have taken a turn for the worse no matter who was in office. Just my opinion.

[bush equals idiot]

23. Welcome to ya mxteam44

The tax cuts the overwhelming majority of the country got weren't enough to offset the increases in just their property tax, let alone stimulate the economy.

If I give you ten dollars and take a hundred, I believe you're ninety dollars in the hole.

If I give my rich buddies and campaign contributors 100 dollars and take ten, I believe they would be thrilled. I have just explained Bush.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi mxteam44!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[nyhuskyfan]

32. There's a problem with the logic

For one thing, the tax cuts were not targeted as a stimulus, they were backloaded to benefit the wealthiest Americans, who aren't likely to spend and redistribute the wealth (trickle down is indeed "voodoo economics"). if they do spend, they have the option to invest in anything in the world, and not even put their money back in the United States at all. There was very little short-term benefit to the Bush tax cuts.

For another thing, the tax cut proposal was originally proposed to give back some of the surplus, not as a stimulus. When the economic downturn hit, then suddenly they changed their reasoning for the EXACT same tax cuts and called them a stimulus. If it sounds familiar, it's because it's the same thing that they did with Iraq -- decide what you want to do and then make up a reason for it later.

For another thing, every economic decision comes with a cost. The cost here was that the surplus was gutted and we're running up enormous deficits. And there was very little benefit for that cost. The economy is puttering along, but we no longer are in a position to stimulate it, because we're bleeding red ink.

Finally, Japan had a similar catastrophe to 9/11 in the mid 1990's (the Kobe earthquake that killed almost 10, 000 people. Their economy, which is smaller and should be more susceptible to external factors (good or bad) than ours, bounced back in a couple months. Granted, a one-time natural catastrophe doesn't have the same residual effects as a terror attack, but it shows that one event can't be used as an excuse for everything.

[bobbyboucher]

33. Nice try.

Time to go back to school. Spouting Repube talking points don't make them true.

[underpants]

12. Well well well look who FUNDS the NBER and heads it

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research

Funding
Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:


John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)
Smith Richardson Foundation

These ARE the Fours Sisters
http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1244.html

[cthrumatrix]

16. "his people" were busy changing start dates months before the

campaign knowing this was an issue... liars.

[JaneQPublic]

18. factcheck.ORG refutes the GOP's recession claims, too

http://factcheck.org/article278.html

Already in Recession?

It's not quite true, as the ad claims, that Bush inherited "an economy already in recession (emphasis added)." It would have been accurate to say Bush inherited "an economy on the verge of recession."

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-partisan group of mostly academic economists, set the start date of the recession as March 2001, weeks after Bush took office on Jan 20. The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

To be sure, the rate of economic growth had slowed significantly at the time Bush took office, as the longest boom in US history drew to a close. Real Gross Domestic Product, a general indicator of economic performance, grew an an unimpressive annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2000, after actually contracting by half a percentage point in the previous quarter. But employment was still growing when Bush was sworn in, and the economy actually added 113,000 payroll jobs between January and March 2001, before starting to decline in April.

In fact, the NBER did not even make a determination that a recession had begun until 10 months after Bush was sworn in, and said that the downturn might not even have qualified as a recession until the attacks of September 11, 2001 exacerbated the nation's economic troubles. The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee said, "Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession."

MORE...

[genius]

20. Kerry needs to jump on this

I was following the stock market, which crashed as a result of Bush's election.

[Clinton Crusader]

24. Havent you heard?? Clinton to blame for everything from...

The fall of the holy roman empire to the irish potato famine to the Titanic...:eyes:
:kick:

[Homerr]

25. I remember Bush talking the economy down in spring '01

When he got into office all he could talk about was "how bad the economy is". I think it had started to slump but he talked it right down into the toilet.

Reason?

Needed to pass his giant tax cut for the wealthy, can't do that while the economy was booming.

[whistle]

27. LIHOP - George W Bush let it happen on purpose by doing....

...nothing to stimulate real economic growth during his first nine months in office. The reason? He had plans to invade Iraq the day he tokk office as president and the entire administrative policy, including slowing economic activity to allow for as little resistance as possible to convert the U.S. consumer economy over to a military economy.