"T.Carr" wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.0402210834.780f568f@posting.google.c om...
> "C. Pangus" wrote in message
news:...
> > "Oklahoma Joe" wrote in message
> >
news:cG9wdXA=.0a6f8f0d360fdf0234b49d703fabde01@107 7358105.nulluser.com...
> > > Its not clintons fault after all....
> > > _________
> > >
> > >
> > > More fuzzy math from the White House
> > >
> > > President Bush probably wants to tear up his economic report and start
> > over
> > > as the third controversy surrounding its contents erupted on Thursday.
The
> > > Washington Post looks at the report's claim, often mentioned by Bush
in
> > > speeches, that he "inherited" the recession. Turns out the economic
> > research
> > > group that dates business cycles puts the recession squarely in Bush's
> > > tenure. "The charts and analyses in the 412-page 'Economic Report of
the
> > > President,' issued last week, put the 'start of the recession' in the
> > fourth
> > > quarter of 2000 -- under President Bill Clinton. But the National
Bureau
> > of
> > > Economic Research, which dates business cycles, has said the recession
> > > lasted eight months beginning in March 2001 -- two months after Bush's
> > > inauguration."
> > >
> > > This discrepancy comes after a public outcry over a statement in the
> > report
> > > that outsourcing is positive for the economy, and after members of
Bush's
> > > cabinet would not endorse an estimate in the report that the economy
would
> > > add 2.6 million jobs this year. The White House backed away from the
> > > estimate, too. (The president is not a "predictor," nor a
"statistician,"
> > > his spokesman told us.)
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> C. Pangus" >
> >
> > The recession started in March 2000 when Greenspan started raising
interest
> > rates to 'cool-off' the economy and get Bush elected.
>
> Are you lying or ignorant? Lets assume ignorance and attempt to cure
> it. From
> www.bea.gov
>
> Qtr %GDP Growth
>
> 1999q1 3.4
> 1999q2 3.4
> 1999q3 4.8
> 1999q4 7.3
> 2000q1 1.0
> 2000q2 6.4
> 2000q3 -0.5
> 2000q4 2.1
> 2001q1 -0.2
> 2001q2 -0.6
> 2001q3 -1.3
> 2001q4 2
> 2002q1 4.7
> 2002q2 1.9
> 2002q3 3.4
> 2002q4 1.3
> 2003q1 2
> 2003q2 3.1
> 2003q3 8.2
> 2003q4 4.0
>
> As one can clearly see the recession began in the first quater of
> 2001.(consecutitive quarters of negative growth)
>
> As far as "rising interest rates" the hikes began in response to the
> excesses in the stock markets...in 1999
>
> http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/dat...fedbog/fedfund
>
> Yr Qtr Int rate (Fed Funds)
>
> 1999 01 4.63
> 1999 02 4.76
> 1999 03 4.81
> 1999 04 4.74
> 1999 05 4.74
> 1999 06 4.76
> 1999 07 4.99
> 1999 08 5.07
> 1999 09 5.22
> 1999 10 5.20
> 1999 11 5.42
> 1999 12 5.30
> 2000 01 5.45
> 2000 02 5.73
> 2000 03 5.85
> 2000 04 6.02
> 2000 05 6.27
> 2000 06 6.53
> 2000 07 6.54
> 2000 08 6.50
> 2000 09 6.52
> 2000 10 6.51
> 2000 11 6.51
> 2000 12 6.40
>
> btw..another problem with your "Greenspan threw the election to Bush
> konspoiracy theory would be to explain why Clinton renominated
> Greenspan?
>
>
> >
> > Watch how fast interest rates start rising AFTER this election.
>
> They should..provided the economy actually improves as anticipated
>
>
> T.Carr


Carr proves himself a moron again. By your own stats interest rates rose
50% higher in 2000 than in 1999. Nor do these stats reflect the minutiae of
examination and weight given to Greenspans public pronouncements.

As for the GDP your reported stats show the growth in the economy falling
off sharply in 2000 just as Greenspan was badmouthing it.

When Clinton renominated Greenspan the economy was doing great.

Why should interest rates go up? So the rich can get richer?