On Jan 16, 3:48 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > NBRE > said it was March of 2001 because that was when we hit six continuous > months of meeting the criteria of a recession, but that means the > first four months of this occurred during the Clinton administration.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology. Controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. A move in the recession date in a 2004 report by the Council of Economic Advisors to several months before the one given by the NBER was seen as politically motivated. 2004! Revisionist history anyone? > The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had a major impact on the economy. His > administration had eight months to detect and stop the attack but > clearly the planning was going on long before he took office. The mess > mostly landed in his lap – he did not create it. No, he ignored it and hoped for the best. Even as just a mere citizen, I could never understand why security was so lax under Clinton or the "new sheriff in town" Bush Jr. > Enron, WorldCom and others were all products of the Internet paper > economy, and their collapse clearly had a major impact on the economy. > That mess landed in Bush’s lap - he did not create it. I still don't understand why "the Enron loophole" that made all this possible hasn't been filled in after almost 8 years. > Katrina had a major impact on the economy. Regardless of how poorly it > may have been handled, you can not disregard its effect on us. This > too landed in Bush’s lap - he did not create it. No he ignored that also. I've said time and again that it wasn't Sec. Browns fault for the slow response, but rather the newly formed Homeland Security Sec. Michael Chertoff's blocking Browns requests for assistance. No, none of this was Bush Jr.'s fault directly...he was too busy singing songs with country music stars, then flying overhead laughing at the people on the ground. No none of this is Bush's fault directly, he's only the one overseeing it all. The most innocent guy in the world. Why shucks, this job practically runs itself. Which leads to another thing I forgot to post... Bush Jr. promised he wouldn't increase the size of government. He did. > None of this is an excuse, it’s just the facts. It’s intended to show > that the simpleton view of Clinton was great, Bush was bad ignores the > facts, yet this is exactly what you are doing. If you conveniently ignore the numbers, you're right. But I'm not ignoring the numbers, because I am one. > Notice, btw, that I am not debating you on the current recession. I’m > in full agreement that as a ‘fiscal conservative’, Bush was a > nightmare. But lets not pretend Bush was handed a perfect economy, or > that some unparalleled economic disasters, not of his making, didn’t > occurred during his presidency. He simply made most everything he touched worse through incompetency. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
