RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Is the recession over?

You quoted a partisan Slate article, which I just demonstrated disproves your own point !



Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
  
  UNITED STATES
  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 [1].
  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001, a period of eight months at the beginning of President George W. Bush's term of office. However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters," and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession.
  
  The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity[1], as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, 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.[2] BCDC members suggested they would be open to revisiting the dates of the recession as newer and more definitive data became available.[3] In early 2004, NBER President Martin Feldstein said:
  
  "It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[3]
  Nonetheless, as of early 2008, no further revision to the dates has been made.
  
  From 2000 to 2001, the Federal Reserve in a move to quell the stock market, made successive interest rate increases, credited in part for "plunging the country into a recession."[4]
  Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently, agreeing with the unemployment statistics that a recession defined in this way would have lasted from 2001 through 2003.
  "

I already knew Bush tried moving the date of the recession for political purposes but I'm missing where the two terms of consecutive negative growth occurred. And the part you bolded was from Newsmax. We both understand that their take is an unofficial and extremely biased pitch for the conservatives.

Yes, of course I understand that.

But my point is, the economy was already in decline for a year before it officially met the criteria of a recession in March 2001.
So it isn't, as you like to allege, that things were going along swimmingly while Clinton was in office, and then as soon as Bush took office, that Bush somehow wrecked the economy. On the contrary, even if the recession accurately began in March 2001, Bush was not in office long enough to have implemented policy that could realistically have affected an economic downturn in that time, at most 8 weeks after he was inaugurated.

And besides, the economy was already measurably in decline throughout 2000, before Bush was available for Democrats to scapegoat blame on.

I didn't quote Newsmax. I quoted Wikipedia, which quoted Newsmax, as well as the Washington Post and other sources they clearly found to be reliable and credible.

And your calling anyone's sources biased is just hilarious, given your consistent use of MediaMatters and now Slate, some of the most partisan liberal sources out there.
Will you be quoting DailyKos and HuffingtonPost next ?

That should win you a lot of converts.

If you're referring to the slower growth that isn't a decline though, that still falls into the economic expansion. And I've looked and I'm not seeing the two consecutive terms of negative growth you've said occurred while Clinton was President. Or are you now defining a recession differently?

The part you tried pushing in bold was Newsmax. You previously made a point about my using Slate (and I at least didn't try to hide my source) Any future criticism from you about my sourcing isn't going to be taken very seriously by me.

A declining economy that the retailers I deal with recognized as a recession, long before a recession was officially declared, was a quantifiably declining economy, however you try to spin it otherwise.

I didn't "hide" anything, you lying weasel.

Since you glossed over it the first time I already said that Wikipedia (which I've aways considered an academic and therefore liberal-leaning information source) quoted the Newsmax article, WITH the Washington Post article. So obviously it was non-partisan enough for them to consider a reliable and good source.

I hasten to add, the Wikipedia piece I posted is, I think, fair to both perspectives. Unlike the partisan excrement you regularly post. Clearly your sources are one-sided (Slate, Media Matters), with facts very much in dispute.

I also see that the Wikipedia entry part that dated the recession into 2000 wasn't even covered by the Newsmax citation. It seems to have no citation at all so I'm guessing a partisan snuck it in and it probably won't be there long. The trouble with Wikipedia is that anybody can stick something in like that.

Things were great where I lived so while things may have been poorer locally for you that doesn't mean that translated to the rest of the country. It's not spin to call slower growth as growth. I would imagine that's why you can't find anything beyond an unsourced Wikipedia entry that has an earlier date for the recession other than March 2001. When do you think the economic expansion ended btw? It appears to me that you put the recession as starting before the economic expansion even peaked.

That's assuming a heck of a lot on your part, based on nothing.

As I said, i've always regarded Wikipedia as a liberal-tilting academic site. And for them to post the Newsmax piece, it must pass their smell-test of not being partisan.

And again, the Wikipedia text I posted gives equal time, if not favorable time, to the notion that the 2001 recession occured entirely on Bush's term, pending further evidence that has not been submitted since the last update.

Why does equal time given to both perspectives upset you so much. Could possibly be that... I don't know... YOU are the partisan trying to sneak something by, and not Wikipedia?

Declining growth is a quantifiable decline in growth moving toward recession.

Again:
The economy in 2000 was not going well, it was declining, and it finally reached the threshold of official recession criteria in March 2001, at most 8 weeks into Bush's term.

Please explain how Bush could have turned an economy that was already on a downward trend into recession in 8 weeks or less.
Was it Bush who raised interest rates 4 quarters in a row ? No, that occurred during Clinton's term.
Only a partisan like yourself could allege something other than the obvious: The economy was already declining under Clinton, and W. Bush had not passed any legislation that would rationalize a downturn in 8 weeks or less.

( i.e., You're a lying cocksucker. )

Please prove to me what could possibly have been done by W. Bush in that short 8 weeks that would have slammed the economy into recession in just 8 weeks.

Unlike Barack Obama, who supported the 750 billion TARP bailout in October 2008, then hammered through a 787 billion dollar "Stimulus" bill, and a 450 billion dollar "Omnibus" bill, and a 1.5 trillion 2009 federal budget, all in just his first 90 days.
**AND** has printed 2 trillion in new cash, which alone could cause Carter-era-brand inflation.

And now is pushing for a trillion-or-so --at least!-- Obamacare medical reform, and has even floated a trial balloon for another trillion or so "2nd Stimulus" bill.
Which all is insane on Obama's part, has destroyed credibility in the U.S. dollar, and just might bankrupt our nation before his term ends.
Now, THAT's how you cause a recession, or worse !

No, the lack of citation is evident. There isn't any citation past the Newsmax part. And yes anyone can add things to Wikipedia. So the part I'm assuming would be the part that I clearly say I'm guessing. I believe it's a safe guess and I'm being upfront about it being a guess.



I don't have an issue with equal time. If I did, I doubt I would even bother discussing anything political with you. I would point out again, you brought up Slate being partisan as an issue first. It's way to late for you to take the high ground about sourcing WB. The issue I have with the Wikipedia entry is that the bottom part has no sourcing at all.

It may not have helped that he talked about a recession coming...

businessweek.com

I agree with MEM, if congress had enacted Bush's tax cut policies we may have avoided the Dem Congress recession.

What are you talking about?

damn you can't even remember the story you posted minutes ago, are you okay?

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
6000+ posts 23 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Is the recession over?

Your post didn't seem to have much relation to it. Just asking for you to clarify and explain it.

I can't hold your hand through this, you posted a story about how Bush warned of an oncoming recession and he campaigned to get policies through to stop it, the Dem controlled congress ignored the warning and we are paying the price. I agree with you.

Oh you're confused. The GOP had control of the house when Bush was elected and with Cheney's tie breaking vote the GOP had more votes in the senate. They passed their tax cuts got rid of paygo and ran up the deficit.

your wrong again, his initial cuts passed but before all his economic policies went into effect the dems controlled congress and blocked further cuts, this began stifling the economy which brought on the last recession. its in the history books.

no its your guys fault!

no yours!

no yours!

no yours infinity!

...damnit!

Actually you're still confused. The republicans rammed through a further round of tax cuts in 2003 using the reconcilliation process if I recall.

Two dollars!

Another lying partisan's answer on your part.

It ignores that Obama talked down the economy not only while he was campaigning, but Obama continued projecing a worsening economy after he was inaugurated as president !
And the financial and stock markets crashed accordingly. Obama was negative about the economy until he was panned for it by the media, when he suddenly unbelievably became optimistic overnight, unconvincing as that was.

Clinton as well campaigned on panning the economy (i.e., "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID"), projecting continued downturn.

Can't we all just agree that clinton and bush started this but obama is making it worse?

No. We had 8 years of economic expansion under Clinton.

at least you give the Reagan and Bush credit for giving Clinton a good economy, to bad he fucked it up for GW.

We had it in spite of clinton. Or did you forget about the dot com explosion?

I've heard the GOP talking points before.

OMG! I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! YOU MUST BE A REPUBLINAZI!.

don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

That's why I also support what I've posted with those cut & paste articles Rex

Pseudo-facts from partisan sources.

Your "facts" don't support or prove anything. What I quoted from Wikipedia gives both sides, but once again, you dismissively reject it because it's not liberal-partisan enough.

Back to MediaMatters I guess.

I've posted the same info from various sources and I don't have a problem with Wikipedia as long as it's sourced. The part you like just isn't sourced. And mentioning media matters would make sense if I had posted something from them but I didn't.

i must have missed that post.

You have before so that invalidates all future posts by you.