"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
>
>> Yeah, it's so much better to be "on the verge of recession", which is
>> what
>> the article says is accurate.
>
> Todd, you're a damn good dude with some good ww posts under your belt, but
> I
> guaranf8ckingtee I am going to plonk your funky ass if you don't quit
> overriding my killfile by replying to that dumbshit troll.
I gave Todd more credit than this too. He doesn't seem to notice, or care,
the troll never replies.
Cut it out please Todd.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > (snip) but the National
> > > Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the
> > recession
> > > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
> > >
> > > I want you to look real hard at this statement. Bush was sworn in Jan.
> > > 18th. In the same report you quote it clearly states the following:
> > >
> > > "The Bureau waits until the data show whether or not a decline is large
> > > enough to qualify as a recession before declaring that a turning point
> in
> > > the economy is a true peak marking the onset of a recession."
> > >
> > > "Recession" isn't an instantaneous occurrence. The declaration of a
> > > "recession" is the culmination of several factors such as employment,
> > > production,income and trade sales. The stats are charted with all the
> > > peaks and valleys and it isn't until they all align into a peak and
> begin
> > a
> > > downward trend that a recession is declared. What is important to note
> is
> > > that it was long overdue. We had just come out of the longest expansion
> > > period in the history of American economy, largely in part from the
> > "Dotcom
> > > phenomenon" and what you saw was the inevitable correction of such.
> > >
> > > What does this mean? Well it means that ,yes, the recession did start
> > 1-1/2
> > > months after the president took office. If you are naive enough to
> > believe
> > > that he was instrumental in causing the recession in such a short time
> > then
> > > take heart in this fact. He corrected the recession in the shortest
> time
> > in
> > > history..... which is also stated in said report.
> > >
> > > The sad fact is that the necessity of debates so close to the elections
> > are
> > > chiefly due to the fact that there are way too many uneducated voters
> who
> > > are influenced by perceived facts and figures they don't even possess
> the
> > > capacity to understand.
> > >
> > > Too many people equate recession with depression......maybe it's because
> > > they rhyme.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, everyone is stupid..except you.
> >
> > "..the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles)
> > says the recession
> > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
>
> Another example of how Clinton was probably the luckiest president in
> history. Do you argue that the economic trend was downward when Bush took
> office?
>
> todd
>
>
Todd,
How can you even imply that Clinton had ANYTHING to do with the downturn in the economy. We all know that the economy took a sudden
and inexplicable downturn exactly the same day the GWB took office. There was mass fear in the private sector that taxes would be
cut and both people and businesses would be stuck holding that extra cash. Even more incredible was the fact that GWB was the first
president to have his budget and economic policies passed by congress and signed into law by the preceding administration months
before taking office and before the election was even held. I still don't know how he managed it.
--
Al Reid
(tongue firmly planted in cheek)
How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (snip) but the National
> > Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the
> recession
> > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
> >
> > I want you to look real hard at this statement. Bush was sworn in Jan.
> > 18th. In the same report you quote it clearly states the following:
> >
> > "The Bureau waits until the data show whether or not a decline is large
> > enough to qualify as a recession before declaring that a turning point
in
> > the economy is a true peak marking the onset of a recession."
> >
> > "Recession" isn't an instantaneous occurrence. The declaration of a
> > "recession" is the culmination of several factors such as employment,
> > production,income and trade sales. The stats are charted with all the
> > peaks and valleys and it isn't until they all align into a peak and
begin
> a
> > downward trend that a recession is declared. What is important to note
is
> > that it was long overdue. We had just come out of the longest expansion
> > period in the history of American economy, largely in part from the
> "Dotcom
> > phenomenon" and what you saw was the inevitable correction of such.
> >
> > What does this mean? Well it means that ,yes, the recession did start
> 1-1/2
> > months after the president took office. If you are naive enough to
> believe
> > that he was instrumental in causing the recession in such a short time
> then
> > take heart in this fact. He corrected the recession in the shortest
time
> in
> > history..... which is also stated in said report.
> >
> > The sad fact is that the necessity of debates so close to the elections
> are
> > chiefly due to the fact that there are way too many uneducated voters
who
> > are influenced by perceived facts and figures they don't even possess
the
> > capacity to understand.
> >
> > Too many people equate recession with depression......maybe it's because
> > they rhyme.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, everyone is stupid..except you.
>
> "..the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles)
> says the recession
> actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
Another example of how Clinton was probably the luckiest president in
history. Do you argue that the economic trend was downward when Bush took
office?
todd
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bush deceives public: New ad lies about economy
> >
> > Pro-Bush Puffery on Economy, Medicare
> >
> > New ad claims Bush inherited an economy "already in recession" and
> > that 41 million seniors "now have access to lower cost prescriptions."
> > Wrong on both counts.
> >
> > http://factcheck.org/article278.html
>
> Yeah, it's so much better to be "on the verge of recession", which is what
> the article says is accurate.
"The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the
economy was already in a recession when Bush took office, but the National
Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession
actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
"The facts also get stretched when the ad claims "41 million seniors now
have access to lower cost prescriptions (emphasis added)." Bush's new
prescription drug benefit will cover seniors on Medicare for an extra
premium of about $35 a month, but not until 2006. Even the currently
available drug discount cards have been used much less than expected.
Current enrollment is less than 5 million."
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (snip) but the National
> Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the
recession
> actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
>
> I want you to look real hard at this statement. Bush was sworn in Jan.
> 18th. In the same report you quote it clearly states the following:
>
> "The Bureau waits until the data show whether or not a decline is large
> enough to qualify as a recession before declaring that a turning point in
> the economy is a true peak marking the onset of a recession."
>
> "Recession" isn't an instantaneous occurrence. The declaration of a
> "recession" is the culmination of several factors such as employment,
> production,income and trade sales. The stats are charted with all the
> peaks and valleys and it isn't until they all align into a peak and begin
a
> downward trend that a recession is declared. What is important to note is
> that it was long overdue. We had just come out of the longest expansion
> period in the history of American economy, largely in part from the
"Dotcom
> phenomenon" and what you saw was the inevitable correction of such.
>
> What does this mean? Well it means that ,yes, the recession did start
1-1/2
> months after the president took office. If you are naive enough to
believe
> that he was instrumental in causing the recession in such a short time
then
> take heart in this fact. He corrected the recession in the shortest time
in
> history..... which is also stated in said report.
>
> The sad fact is that the necessity of debates so close to the elections
are
> chiefly due to the fact that there are way too many uneducated voters who
> are influenced by perceived facts and figures they don't even possess the
> capacity to understand.
>
> Too many people equate recession with depression......maybe it's because
> they rhyme.
>
>
Yeah, everyone is stupid..except you.
"..the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles)
says the recession
actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > (snip) but the National
> > > Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the
> > recession
> > > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
> > >
> > > I want you to look real hard at this statement. Bush was sworn in
Jan.
> > > 18th. In the same report you quote it clearly states the following:
> > >
> > > "The Bureau waits until the data show whether or not a decline is
large
> > > enough to qualify as a recession before declaring that a turning point
> in
> > > the economy is a true peak marking the onset of a recession."
> > >
> > > "Recession" isn't an instantaneous occurrence. The declaration of a
> > > "recession" is the culmination of several factors such as employment,
> > > production,income and trade sales. The stats are charted with all
the
> > > peaks and valleys and it isn't until they all align into a peak and
> begin
> > a
> > > downward tr
endthatarecessionisdeclared.Whatisimportanttonote
> is
> > > that it was long overdue. We had just come out of the longest
expansion
> > > period in the history of American economy, largely in part from the
> > "Dotcom
> > > phenomenon" and what you saw was the inevitable correction of such.
> > >
> > > What does this mean? Well it means that ,yes, the recession did start
> > 1-1/2
> > > months after the president took office. If you are naive enough to
> > believe
> > > that he was instrumental in causing the recession in such a short time
> > then
> > > take heart in this fact. He corrected the recession in the shortest
> time
> > in
> > > history..... which is also stated in said report.
> > >
> > > The sad fact is that the necessity of debates so close to the
elections
> > are
> > > chiefly due to the fact that there are way too many uneducated voters
> who
> > > are influenced by perceived facts and figures they don't even possess
> the
> > > capacity to understand.
> > >
> > > Too many people equate recession with depression......maybe it's
because
> > > they rhyme.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, everyone is stupid..except you.
> >
> > "..the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business
cycles)
> > says the recession
> > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
>
> Another example of how Clinton was probably the luckiest president in
> history. Do you argue that the economic trend was downward when Bush took
> office?
No. I argue that Bush is lying.
Why don't you take this to rec.we_dont_care. this is a woodworking group!
Florida Patriot wrote:
> Bush deceives public: New ad lies about economy
>
> Pro-Bush Puffery on Economy, Medicare
>
> New ad claims Bush inherited an economy "already in recession" and
> that 41 million seniors "now have access to lower cost prescriptions."
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> http://factcheck.org/article278.html
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > "..the National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business
> cycles)
> > > says the recession
> > > actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
> >
> > Another example of how Clinton was probably the luckiest president in
> > history. Do you argue that the economic trend was downward when Bush
took
> > office?
>
> No. I argue that Bush is lying.
Do you think that any Bush economic policy was in place when the recession
started (supposedly) in March of 2001? Bush didn't even submit a budget
until the following year. You admit that the economy was trending downward
when Bush took office. Bush inherited a weak economy. The economy is like
a large cruise liner, it doesn't change direction quickly. The analogy
would be bringing a cruise ship into dock. Clinton is at the helm, but
going too fast to dock safely. 60 seconds before the collision, Clinton is
relieved and Bush takes over. No matter what is done at that point, nothing
will prevent the ship from crashing into the dock. In your world, Bush is
responsible because he was a the helm when it happened. In the rest of the
world, Clinton would be responsible because he created a condition that was
unalterable.
todd
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bush deceives public: New ad lies about economy
>
> Pro-Bush Puffery on Economy, Medicare
>
> New ad claims Bush inherited an economy "already in recession" and
> that 41 million seniors "now have access to lower cost prescriptions."
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> http://factcheck.org/article278.html
Yeah, it's so much better to be "on the verge of recession", which is what
the article says is accurate.
todd
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
> Yeah, it's so much better to be "on the verge of recession", which is what
> the article says is accurate.
Todd, you're a damn good dude with some good ww posts under your belt, but I
guaranf8ckingtee I am going to plonk your funky ass if you don't quit
overriding my killfile by replying to that dumbshit troll.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
(snip) but the National
Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the recession
actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in January."
I want you to look real hard at this statement. Bush was sworn in Jan.
18th. In the same report you quote it clearly states the following:
"The Bureau waits until the data show whether or not a decline is large
enough to qualify as a recession before declaring that a turning point in
the economy is a true peak marking the onset of a recession."
"Recession" isn't an instantaneous occurrence. The declaration of a
"recession" is the culmination of several factors such as employment,
production,income and trade sales. The stats are charted with all the
peaks and valleys and it isn't until they all align into a peak and begin a
downward trend that a recession is declared. What is important to note is
that it was long overdue. We had just come out of the longest expansion
period in the history of American economy, largely in part from the "Dotcom
phenomenon" and what you saw was the inevitable correction of such.
What does this mean? Well it means that ,yes, the recession did start 1-1/2
months after the president took office. If you are naive enough to believe
that he was instrumental in causing the recession in such a short time then
take heart in this fact. He corrected the recession in the shortest time in
history..... which is also stated in said report.
The sad fact is that the necessity of debates so close to the elections are
chiefly due to the fact that there are way too many uneducated voters who
are influenced by perceived facts and figures they don't even possess the
capacity to understand.
Too many people equate recession with depression......maybe it's because
they rhyme.