Kerry is blaming Bush for Clinton's economic mess

[igloo]

March 05, 2004, 9:02 a.m.

Recession Politics

Kerry is blaming Bush for Clinton's mess (which Bush, by the way, has fixed).

By Cesar Conda

In a recent speech, John Kerry declared, "[President Bush] inherited the strongest economy in the world — and brought it to its knees." There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests that President Bush inherited a recession.

A key issue this election season — one which some observers believe will determine the outcome of the presidential election — is whether the recession began in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other. However, data and supporting analyses from economists indicate that the recession began well before Bush took office, making political criticism of the president on the jobs issue even more inappropriate.

According the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the unofficial arbiter of business cycles, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November 2001. NBER analyzes four data series from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, and other government sources. While previously NBER indicated the recession started in March 2001 (it has not formally revised that date), official revisions of the data indicate that the recession started earlier than that.

For example, under revised calculations, real disposable income peaked in October 2000, rather than steadily rising in 2000 and early 2001 as indicated in the original data. Industrial production/manufacturing and trade sales both peaked in June of 2000, instead of September and August, respectively. Non-farm payroll employment peaked in February 2001, not March 2001. And monthly gross domestic product, which the NBER recently announced will be included in dating recessions, also peaked in 2000.

According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the median date of these five data series is October 2000 — at least three months before George W. Bush took office. We also know that the stock market started to decline in March of 2000, business investment began to fall in the third quarter of 2000, and initial jobless claims began to rise at the end of 2000 — more evidence that the U.S. economy in late 2000 was in fact "on the front end of a recession," as Vice President-elect Dick Cheney observed on Meet the Press on December 3, 2000.

Senator John Kerry and other Democratic party leaders ignore or gloss over these facts. However, even professor Joseph Stiglitz, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that "the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier."

To be sure, the Federal Reserve's twelve-month tightening cycle that began in mid-1999 contributed to the economic slowdown. It is also true that cyclical forces in the economy led to the type of business retrenchment that we have seen in the past and that will likely always be seen to some extent in a market economy. But a significant contributing factor in the slowdown was the policy direction of the Clinton administration, which included an aggressive use of antitrust regulation in the high-tech marketplace, a lack of a national energy policy which resulted in energy-price spikes, and a high and rising federal tax burden.

A key area in which presidents can have an impact on the economy is tax policy. President Clinton raised tax rates right after taking office in 1993, and presided over a massive "stealth tax hike" which ultimately hurt the economy. Because income taxes were not indexed, the increase in real incomes during the 1990s pushed people into higher and higher tax brackets. According to Brian Wesbury of GKST Economics in Chicago, from 1993 to 2000, the number of people who paid taxes in one of the top three income-tax brackets almost doubled from 3.4 million to 6.4 million filers. Further, total income taxes paid by these filers increased from $84.6 billion in 1993 to $245.8 billion, an increase of 190.5 percent. President Clinton's policies increased the federal tax burden as a share of our national economy from 17.5 percent in 1992 to 20.9 percent in 2000.

President Bush, however, took the opposite approach of his predecessor. Upon taking office, George W. Bush took immediate action to lift the tax burden and strengthen the economy. The first Bush tax cut put $40 billion immediately back into the economy in mid-2001 and helped cushion the economic fallout from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In March 2002, the president signed a second tax cut that allowed partial expensing, which began the recovery in business-investment spending. In May 2003, Bush signed the third tax cut of his administration, boosting after-tax economic incentives by slashing tax rates on income, capital gains, and dividends.

Largely as a result of the president's tax-rate cuts, the recovery has moved into higher gear. The economy grew 6.1 percent in the second half of 2003, and 4.3 percent over the four quarters of 2003 — well above potential GDP growth. Business fixed investment in the fourth quarter of 2003 was revised upward to a 9.6 percent annual rate from 6.9 percent. The stock market has now returned to the level it was at when President Bush took office, which means that all the losses that occurred since March 2000 happened under President Clinton. In January, the economy generated 112,000 new jobs — the largest monthly increase since December 2000 — and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last 5 months. The unemployment rate has declined from 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in January of this year, the fastest seven-month decline in nearly a decade.

And its not just supply-siders lauding the Bush tax cuts. Goldman Sachs economist Edward McKelvey, an early skeptic of Bush tax policy, now concludes, "they definitely had a stronger impact on spending than we anticipated." The Wachovia Economics Group reports that the "economic data provide support for the case that the midyear tax cut did take the economy up a notch. There is no need to resort to esoteric data or the torture of innocent economic statistics. The data are clear in their verdict" [emphasis added]. And International Monetary Fund economist Magda Kandil says the president's plan "is directly targeting consumer spending and investment incentives ... The end of double taxation of dividends and increasing incentives for small businesses should help sustain momentum in favor of job creation and long-term growth."

While armchair quarterbacking is fun for politicians, voters increasingly want to know what John Kerry would do to "create jobs." His solution, it appears, is to raise income-tax rates on job-creating small-business owners, roll back the tax cuts on investor capital gains and dividends, and cancel the scheduled elimination of the death tax. In the first presidential debate a reporter should ask John Kerry: "How will increasing taxes on those most likely to save, to invest, and to employ people create jobs in America?" His answer will tell Americans much about his own vision of America's economic future.

[siceone]

Excellent fucking read I think everyone should read this.. this data has been out for a while and the bush haters refuse to see the truth..

[igloo]

Originally posted by siceone

Excellent fucking read I think everyone should read this.. this data has been out for a while and the bush haters refuse to see the truth..

They will ignore it...mostly because it is fact

[jamiroguy1]

The recession started 2 months after Bush's inauguration according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the official non-partisan entity that dates business cycles. You all are a bunch of lying shits. Read it and weep, bitches.

Recession's Timing Becomes An Issue

Did the Slump Start Under Clinton or Bush?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56170-2004Feb19.html

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

The recession started 2 months after Bush's inauguration according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the official non-partisan entity that dates business cycles. You all are a bunch of lying shits. Read it and weep, bitches.

Recession's Timing Becomes An Issue

Did the Slump Start Under Clinton or Bush?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56170-2004Feb19.html

A key issue this election season — one which some observers believe will determine the outcome of the presidential election — is whether the recession began in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other.

Don't you ever tire of being a schmuck....

And did you even read the very article that you posted????

DId you misread this about NBER:

Members of the group that determines the date have discussed moving it into 2000, but no meeting has been scheduled to consider the question.

You are a fucking retard...andyou proved it again all by yourself....

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

A key issue this election season — one which some observers believe will determine the outcome of the presidential election — is whether the recession began in the last quarter of 2000 or during the first months of the Bush presidency. Granted, even if the truth is that the recession began in the days after George W. Bush's inauguration, most reasonable people would conclude that a president cannot on a dime turn a $10 trillion economy one way or the other.

Don't you ever tire of being a schmuck....

And did you even read the very article that you posted????

DId you misread this about NBER:

Members of the group that determines the date have discussed moving it into 2000, but no meeting has been scheduled to consider the question.

I'm glad you can read, dickhead. But that still doesn't change the fact that the date hasn't been moved. As it stands now, the recession officially started in March 2001... Sorry but you're a fucking douchebag. Now go have sex with your mother, fucking loser!

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I'm glad you can read, dickhead. But that still doesn't change the fact that the date hasn't been moved. As it stands now, the recession officially started in March 2001... Sorry but you're a fucking douchebag. Now go have sex with your mother, fucking loser!

Are you kidding me???????.....are you serious???????

Are you really going to show that you are that fucking dumb?.....Do you really want to expose what a clown you are?

Members of a group have discussed moving the date, and you want to ignore it?

And are you also going to simply ignore other economic data that shows the recession started before Bush?

Are you also going to ignore the fact that even IF the recession started when Bush took office, he or his policies would have nothing to do with it in such a short time period?

Or are you going to simply ignore the mountain of negative economic data BEFORE Bush took office that showed an economy on a decline?

You're entire stance is flawed, idiotic, and reflective of someone who is an absolute moron...

Then again, you never do cease to live up to your own benchmark: moronic bafoon

Nice job jerkoff, you came through again.

[siceone]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I'm glad you can read, dickhead. But that still doesn't change the fact that the date hasn't been moved. As it stands now, the recession officially started in March 2001... Sorry but you're a fucking douchebag. Now go have sex with your mother, fucking loser!

you think a president can pass enough legislation to reverse a growing economy in 3 months?

a recession is 3 or 4 quarters of negative growth that's well into the clinton era babe.... the economy was tanking before bush came into office sorry

[seximofo2k]

the article fails to mention the economic prosperity that passed during the 8 years of the Clinton administration which the reality seems to haunt republicans. by the way u learned in your 12th grade economics class that recessions are cyclical and inevitable. Trying to say that a leader was the sole reason for a recession if moronic. You think that 8 str8 terms of republicans would yeild not 1 recession?

[siceone]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

the article fails to mention the economic prosperity that passed during the 8 years of the Clinton administration which the reality seems to haunt republicans. by the way u learned in your 12th grade economics class that recessions are cyclical and inevitable. Trying to say that a leader was the sole reason for a recession if moronic. You think that 8 str8 terms of republicans would yeild not 1 recession?

Maybe if you took an upper level ecomics course you would learn that the decisions of an administration take 3 to 4 years to show impact... clinton In herited a good economy he was lucky everyone knows it that's why you'll never see a bonafide economist say bush is responsible for the recession... just goes to show you that in the face of DATA you still blame bush as the impetus for the rise in unemployment when clinton clearly was

[siceone]

Oh yeah NAME ONE THING CLINTON DID THAT WAS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY ONE PEICE OF LEGISLATION I DARE YOU

[igloo]

Originally posted by siceone

you think a president can pass enough legislation to reverse a growing economy in 3 months?

a recession is 3 or 4 quarters of negative growth that's well into the clinton era babe.... the economy was tanking before bush came into office sorry

Jamirolost is a retard....waste of time trying to educate the fool.....

He has shown time and time again that even when the facts hit him straight in his retarded mouth, he still is unable to break free from the moronic shell that encases him....

Perhaps even more remarkable, is his lack of self respect that he continually demonstrates by simply being wrong all the time, all done so he could stick to his pathetic "Bush Sucks" mantra.....

You would think that after the number of ass kickings this clown has received, something would click....but then again, if the brain is lacking......

[Drunk]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

I'm glad you can read, dickhead. But that still doesn't change the fact that the date hasn't been moved. As it stands now, the recession officially started in March 2001... Sorry but you're a fucking douchebag. Now go have sex with your mother, fucking loser!

Ridiculous. The bubble deflated in 2000. There were signs the economy was tumbling before Bush took office, and he's supposed to be responsible? If you think an economy can just do an about face in 3 months you are are simpleton.

[igloo]

Another thread where jamirolost gets his ass kicked ..............another thread where the stupidity of jamirolost is exposed for all to see...

Good job retard

[pattbateman]

no shit

i hate saying this kind of shit because i hate to hear other people say shit like this but ill do it anyways.....

clinton happened to be in office when the economy was booming, because the internet was taking off, (thanks to Al Gore!)

all the fake money that was being made off companies because a entire new market was made in a matter of years and everyone tried and some succesfully to capatalize on it

as time went by 90% of these companies went bankrupt and investors in tech stock slowly watched these companies dwindle to nothing and there money gone

i believe the internet is the SOLE reason the economy was doing well while clinton was in office (and i know if it was a republican in office you libs would say the same shit so shut up!)

if fuckin beelzebub himself were in office then, and Al Gore came along and invented the internet the economy would flying sky high!!