After further review...

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Don't let the source for this article throw you. He's merely pointing out what the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research is reporting.

After Further Review . . .

Did the late recession start under Clinton?

By Greg Kaza   

Revised economic data may suggest that the U.S. recession actually started in late 2000 while Bill Clinton was still president, not the March 2001 peak established by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. Three members of the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee recently stated that the recession may have started earlier, although any decision will not be made until more revised data are available.

The seven-person NBER panel, considered the official business-cycle umpire, uses a broad array of indicators. These include industrial production, real personal income, and nonfarm payroll employment. The nonfarm number peaked in March 2001, leading the panel to initially conclude that the recession started that month...

...The monthly GDP data is subject to revision, but appears to have peaked between November 2000 and February 2001.

It is unusual  —  although not unheard of  —  for the NBER to make minor changes to cycle dates. The most recent change occurred in 1975, and any revision of the March 2001 peak is likely to occur only after considerable study. The memo explained, "The committee would change the date of a recent peak or trough if it concluded that the date it had chosen was incorrect."...

...However, while economists may dissect the dating of the latest recession, they will respect the umpire's call. The more important question is, What causes these cycles? An excellent survey is featured in Business Cycles, by Mr. Zarnowitz, one of the three NBER panel members to recently comment on the dating of the last recession. (The survey includes reviews of the works of R.G. Hawtrey, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, and R.E. Lucas and Hyman P. Minsky.)

Economists understand expansions and recessions better than partisans. They are (or should be) nonpartisan. The political irony is that only eight months ago partisan Democrats insisted the recession had not ended. Today they find themselves backtracking on yet another front.  Not only has the recession ended under President George W. Bush, it may have officially started under President Bill Clinton.

Greg Kaza is executive director of the Arkansas Policy Foundation, a non-profit economic research organization in Little Rock.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...00402100842.asp

And I'll go on to further state, even if the recession did start in February 2001, Bush hadn't been in office long enough for any economic policy of his to have had ANY effect on the economy.

[Tiger Al 0]

As I've said before, I'm no economist, but, aren't recessions a normal happening in an economy? Sooner or later, won't the economy naturally draw back some?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Well, I would say that to some degree that would be true. Although that didn't save Bush, Sr.'s job any. And his was the shortest recession in history and officially ended a full 19 months before the '92 election and 21 months before Clinton took office. But, as is almost always the case, jobs lagged behind the rest of the recovery. So he was out.

As it pertains to the current president, if what you say is true, why was the recession being called by Dems the "Bush recession"?

[DKW 86 7,726]

Heavens No! Clinton rewrote the Economics books, just ask him or Slumlord Al Gore. LOL

Actually they are very cyclical. But THE POINT IS......THIS ONE STARTED UNDER CLINTON AND GORE. Not as the media would have you believe under Bush. I really want the election to really start now. The real debate, the real political war. Bush has not done good responding to the attacks yet, but he will likely get his legs soon, or get OBL and then the election is history. BTW, did you folks read where OBL says he knows he will die this year?

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, I would say that to some degree that would be true. Although that didn't save Bush, Sr.'s job any. And his was the shortest recession in history and officially ended a full 19 months before the '92 election and 21 months before Clinton took office. But, as is almost always the case, jobs lagged behind the rest of the recovery. So he was out.

As it pertains to the current president, if what you say is true, why was the recession being called by Dems the "Bush recession"?

Well, my point would be this; it seems to me that if you can't control recessions absolutely then all you can do is react to them and try to correct them ASAP. That seems even tricky since you don't know for sure that you're in one until you've been in it for, I think, three straight months, right? So whether it started under Clinton or it started under Bush seems to me to be irrelevent. If it's a normal occurence that will happen sooner or later then how is the recession, in and of itself, anyone's FAULT?

[AUBoggs 0]

As I've said before, I'm no economist, but, aren't recessions a normal happening in an economy? Sooner or later, won't the economy naturally draw back some?

Al, I've always believed as you just stated. It's cyclical

Well, my point would be this; it seems to me that if you can't control recessions absolutely then all you can do is react to them and try to correct them ASAP.

I agree on this point too. Corrections need to be made in an attempt to limit the severity and hasten the recovery. I believe this is the hardest part to deal with and, incidentally, the most disagreed with.

[DKW 86 7,726]

The measure is three negative growth quarters in a row, that would be 9 months.

[tejasjack 0]

I would add that Clinton got a free skate on the economy during his entire tenure and did nothing but take credit for it. He did, however, raise taxes in his 2nd term. And raising taxes does have a negative effect on economic growth and job creation. I would argue that Clinton's policy bought a quicker than needed end to the economic good times and caused us to lapse into recession near the end of his 2nd term and Bush inherited that mess. To Bush's credit he did the right thing and pushed for tax cuts (JFK did this too way back when, as did Reagan of course!) and Greenspan has done a terrific job with the interest rates and voila, we are recovering...so yes a President can have some effect on the economy by taxation.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

As I've said before, I'm no economist, but, aren't recessions a normal happening in an economy? Sooner or later, won't the economy naturally draw back some?

TA, please be careful w/ these kinds of rational statements...could you provide us w/ some kind of warning when you're gonna do this???

ct

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Well, my point would be this; it seems to me that if you can't control recessions absolutely then all you can do is react to them and try to correct them ASAP. That seems even tricky since you don't know for sure that you're in one until you've been in it for, I think, three straight months, right? So whether it started under Clinton or it started under Bush seems to me to be irrelevent. If it's a normal occurence that will happen sooner or later then how is the recession, in and of itself, anyone's FAULT?

Ok. So you don't blame anyone for the recession. They just happen. Then I have some questions:

1. Why is Bush constantly being blamed by Dems for the recession that began, at the latest, early in his term?

2. Why, when jobs always lag behind in any economic recovery is Bush being blamed for job loss?

3. Why, with jobs beginning to rebound (I think the most recent month was 116,000 new jobs) are Dems still talking about jobs lost and not talking about the current trend of jobs coming back? I mean, we'd all like to see larger amounts each month. But if we just stay at 116K jobs per month being gained until November, we will have added over 1 million jobs just this year. That's assuming we continue on what most are saying is rather slow job growth.

I guess I'm just puzzled. There are so many questions to ask. Dems point to Clinton as some kind of indicator that if you vote for them, economic times will improve because he had some kind of proven track record. But he was handed an economy on the mend when he took office. GWB did not have that luxury. Plus he had the double whammy of 9/11 and it's effect on the economy to deal with. And corporate scandals that had gone on for year under Clinton's watch, and probably even Bush, Sr. and Reagan before that. But they blew up and came to light shortly after GWB took office. That hurt the economy.

How do you bring all of these factors into congruence and go along with all the Dem bashing of Bush on the economy? The only place where I agree with them at all is their criticism on the size of the deficit. I think some kind of deficit was inevitable under the circumstances, but I think it could have been less and some of that falls on Congress. They are the ones who actually spend the money. GWB's fault lies in that he needs to learn to actually use a veto and not just threaten.

I'm rambling now. Just give me some insight into your views on this and how you jive what the Dems are saying with all the circumstances I mentioned.

[Tiger Al 0]

TA, please be careful w/ these kinds of rational statements...could you provide us w/ some kind of warning when you're gonna do this???

I usually try not to let sound reasoning and judgement get in the way of my arguments but sometimes I forget to!!!

But, seriously, if you look back over a few decades you see recessions happening about every ten years or so. I think in the eighties (under Reagan!) there were two fairly close together, but usually it seems to stretch out further than that. Same with the stock market. Minor corrections are normal and a healthy market will absorb it and it rebounds.

As I've said with regards to recessions, if they are normal occurences, it seems incorrect to assign blame to Bush or Clinton because it started under one or the others' watch. I don't think I've ever "blamed" Bush for the recession but I disagree with some of the things he's done economically.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ok. So you don't blame anyone for the recession. They just happen. Then I have some questions:

Remember, this is a conditional opinion. I'm going to do some reading later and learn a little more about economic factors. I could be wrong and recessions are totally controllable and when they happen it's either because the president meant for it to or he was asleep at the wheel. My initial belief is that they just happen sometimes.

1. Why is Bush constantly being blamed by Dems for the recession that began, at the latest, early in his term?

Why do the republicans say it was Clinton's fault. Maybe the answer to both questions is "political rhetoric."

2. Why, when jobs always lag behind in any economic recovery is Bush being blamed for job loss?

Because plan for economic recovery wasn't a good one. He claimed his tax cuts would do two things: First, stimulate the economy and, second, create jobs.

For the economy to be stimulated, he said that the surplus had to be returned to the people and in turn that would put extra money into the economy, thus stimulating it. I agree, as a short-term solution tax cuts have worked before. Where I, and Democrats, disagree is in how it was done. The tax cuts were targeted toward the wealthiest in the country who were the least likely to spend the money they got. Millionaires aren't likely to take a check for $50,000 and do anything more with it than put it in the bank or in stocks, etc. They aren't going to run out and spend it on a good or service as Bush claimed would happen. Giving a $1,000 tax cut to 50 middle and lower income workers would've put nearly all of that $50,000 into the economy almost immediately after they got the checks. On a scale the size of the 2002 tax cuts, this would've put a whole lot more money into the economy AND made the lives of people living paycheck to paycheck a little easier. But, tax cuts are only a short-term solution and don't address jobs, despite Bush's claims to the contrary.

If you want to create jobs, why try to reinvent the wheel by using tax cuts? If you want to create jobs, then CREATE JOBS!!! Some of the surplus, after tax cuts for short-term stimulation, could've gone toward repairing roads, bridges, power grids, schools, etc. Things in the infrastructure that need repair would've gotten it AND people would've been hired to do that. In the 90's, Clinton created some jobs and economical growth by doing just that. Interstate repair and addition created jobs, made taxpayers out of the unemployed and improved some of the interstates that everybody uses everyday. It was a win/win. Something like that would've created lots of jobs because we still have lots of things to improve/repair/replace.

3. Why, with jobs beginning to rebound (I think the most recent month was 116,000 new jobs) are Dems still talking about jobs lost and not talking about the current trend of jobs coming back? I mean, we'd all like to see larger amounts each month. But if we just stay at 116K jobs per month being gained until November, we will have added over 1 million jobs just this year. That's assuming we continue on what most are saying is rather slow job growth.

Because jobs haven't rebounded either qualitatively or quantitatively, especially by the numbers Bush himself claimed they would because of his tax cuts. If we maintained the numbers that you stated, then by November Bush will have regained almost 1/3rd (33%) of the jobs LOST under his term. That means that 2/3rds of the jobs lost remain lost. I understand that if you have a lifetime batting average of .300 you stand a good chance of getting into the Hall of Fame, but this isn't baseball. The latest estimates out of the White House had job growth at around 285,000 per month, so even if 116,000 is correct, that's not even 50% of what was promised. Think about this, though; Unless there is a tremendous job growth turnaround very soon, Bush stands to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net jobs loss, meaning more were lost than were created. There have been eleven presidents during that span.

The complaints about jobs are twofold. One is real and the other is political. It's real because we aren't talking about jobs or taxes or revenue. We're talking about real people who are really hurting because their source of income is gone and they haven't been able to get it back. The political part is because Bush drove these tax cuts through Congress when many, many learned people were saying "This won't work!" He continued on because he knew best and now we're living with the result of his decisions.

And this gets to the congruence as you said. Bush's problem has been that he doesn't seem to be very analytical when it comes to making decisions that affect people's lives. He has this narrow view of what he thinks is best and doesn't consider alternative viewpoints suggesting that he may be wrong. This is packaged by Karl Rove and the conservative pundits as "decisiveness" and "resolve" but I see it as pigheadedness. I feel like I'm a fairly decisive person but I don't go off half-cocked, especially when someone with experience tells me where I may be wrong. I'll reevalute my position in light of that new information and adjust if necessary. I don't see this as a weakness but Bush seems to. And, what his massive tax cuts did to the surplus, turning it into a massive deficit, is irresponsible at best.

So, depending on who you are, if asked if you were better off now than four years ago, I don't think very many in this country would answer "Yes." You and I might be among the ones who do, and if so, then vote for him again in November.