Say Anything Blog

Good post, but I think to be more accurate it should be based on a 
g;e drop rather than absolute dollars.

Another thing to mention is that the market was jittery in the 2001 over the Enron, Worldcom etc fiasco that Clinton turned a blind eye to and was discovered when we had a real president.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Recession came after the Bush tax rate cuts.

2001 recession began in March that year, so today’s announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

Bush Economy

woof that’s so sad that you distort the facts to make up your stuff. 

Looking at the figures we clearly were declining into the recession starting from mid 2000 on.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Recession came after the Bush tax rate cuts.

WOOF, you’re so full of shit that my office smells now.

Even WaPo agrees:
Economists Say Recession Started in 2000

Meanwhile the nation’s output of goods and services, or GDP, declined in the first three quarters of 2001, but started growing again in the fourth quarter of that year and has continued to rise since then.

Look at the GDP data, look at the facts.  Look at when the recession began vs. when the tax cuts were enacted.  Then learn how to stop lying.

Even if the recession began in March 2001, the latest claimed time period, it was still before the tax cuts.

WOOF,

You are wrong… Again!  Read your own cited article, Twit!

After contracting the first three quarters of 2001, gross domestic product or GDP, the country’s total output of goods and services, began growing again in the fourth quarter 2001 and has been rising since, although in a zig-zag pattern that has not been strong enough to keep unemployment from rising.

The period reported as recessionary by BER was from January 2001 forward.  The numbers are quarterly, but are reported, not surprisingly, after the end of the quarter.

Secondly, the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, passed in May of 2001 included,

• A rate cut in every income tax bracket, beginning in 2001 with the creation of a new 10 percent bottom bracket to cover a portion of incomes previously taxed at the 15 percent rate. Other changes were to be more slowly phased in, becoming fully effective in 2006.

• A phased-in doubling of the child credit, from $500 in 2000 to $1,000 by 2010.

• Elimination of the so-called marriage penalty, which results in working spouses paying more in taxes than if they remained single, by increasing the standard deduction and broadening the 15 percent tax bracket for married filers. These changes also were to be slowly phased in; the increased deduction would be fully effective in 2008, and the rate savings for married filers would be fully effective in 2009.

• Elimination of limits on deductions and personal exemptions (known to tax technicians as “PEP” and “Pease” limits) on a phased-in basis, starting in 2006 and becoming fully effective in 2010.

Note that all the above provisions were to be phased in over the course of several years.  Then, as you might recall, 9-11.

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act was passed in May of 2003, and accelerated the remaining EGTRRA rate cuts, the marriage penalty relief, corporate rate cuts and dividend payments to 15%, capital gains, child credit, and AMT exemption changes which had been scheduled to be phased in over time.

To suggest that the 2001 recession was the result of the Bush tax rate cuts is not only flagrantly dishonest, it’s also just plain stupid.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I’ll take these guys over the WAPO

The committee that puts official dates on U.S. economic expansions and contractions

The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee

I’ll take these guys over the WAPO

Believing them means actually reading what they said:

The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee confirmed what many economists have believed: that the economy has resumed growing, albeit slowly.

“At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001,” the committee said in a statement Thursday.

The committee, which consists of top academic economists, met in Cambridge, Mass., to discuss the issue.

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today’s announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.

Even if the recession began in March 2001, the latest claimed time period, it was still before the tax cuts.

Thanks for adding additional evidence to my prior comment

As is often the case with economic terminology, we have a difference of opinion as to what actually constitutes a recessions.  According to the Federal Reserve, and Wikipedia,

A recession is traditionally defined in macroeconomics as a decline in a country’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more successive quarters of a year (equivalently, two consecutive quarters of negative real economic growth).

On the other hand, the National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession more ambiguously as

...a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months.

In either case, it is still abundantly clear that only an idiot would seriously suggest that tax cuts signed into law in May would be responsible for a recession that arguably began somewhere between 3 and 9 months beforehand.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”