More fuzzy math from the White House

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.)
--

"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.)
> --
>
>
>


The recession started in March 2000 when Greenspan started raising interest
rates to 'cool-off' the economy and get Bush elected.

Watch how fast interest rates start rising AFTER this election.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:00:48 GMT, "C. Pangus"
wrote:


>
>
>The recession started in March 2000 when Greenspan started raising interest
>rates to 'cool-off' the economy and get Bush elected.
>
>Watch how fast interest rates start rising AFTER this election.



So even that he worked for Clinton, he screwed him right before
Clinton's own eyes and Hillary had nothing to say?
Now thats fiction, if he did the Clinton's and at his age you just
know something bad would have happened. ( and here where I'll let your
little mind work )


Ken
11Bravo

"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

"Ken" wrote in message
news:thpe30pgrbl1p0fcac0t80r7taseiegcuo@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:00:48 GMT, "C. Pangus"
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >The recession started in March 2000 when Greenspan started raising
interest
> >rates to 'cool-off' the economy and get Bush elected.
> >
> >Watch how fast interest rates start rising AFTER this election.
>
>
>
> So even that he worked for Clinton, he screwed him right before
> Clinton's own eyes and Hillary had nothing to say?
> Now thats fiction, if he did the Clinton's and at his age you just
> know something bad would have happened. ( and here where I'll let your
> little mind work )
>
>
> Ken
> 11Bravo

Greenspan was there before Clinton took office and as long as the economy
was going good there was no reason not to re-appoint him. Probably a lot of
subtle threats about what would happen if Greenspan was removed. The money
interests which Greenspan serves certainly didn't want him to dump the
economy unless they saw something good to come out of it. With a silver
spoon elitist like Bush as a front man they did.

As for using the Clinton's for an excuse, again, it is old and tired beyond
belief. Hillary has kept her mouth surprisingly closed on a lot of issues
she certainly knows a lot about. Probably to chose her own time and place.

Formerly 38th ADA: so what.

"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?

"C. Pangus" wrote in message news:...
> "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
>

C. Pangus"
>
> Carr proves himself a moron again.

Still the potty mouth eh Mr Pangus. This is the thanks I get for
curing your abject ignorance?

By your own stats interest rates rose
> 50% higher in 2000 than in 1999.

Your BS claim was that "The recession started in March 2000 when
Greenspan started raising interest rates to 'cool-off' the economy and
get Bush elected."

First the data clearly proves the recession began in the first
quarter of 2001, not 2000 as you claimed

Care to try a bit of intellectual honesty and admit your factual
error?

In addition the data cited clearly indicates that the interest rate
increases began 1 year earlier than your claim, yet the economy boomed
through 1999

Care to admit that your claim is factually wrong and without merit?

Nor do these stats reflect the minutiae of
> examination and weight given to Greenspans public pronouncements.

As far as the "minutuae" of examimination, feel free to provide
cited evidence of your own to support your claim.

I wont hold my breath waiting

As far as Greenspans commentary, feel free to cite what was said and
when, and correlate it to GDP growth cited above

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

Nonsense. Greenspan was quoted about "irrational exuberance" of the
markets in December 1996

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...6/19961205.htm

>
> When Clinton renominated Greenspan the economy was doing great.

Yet he was on record indicating that concern was warranted

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

You dont have a clue do you?

How about a few easy ones..keeping inflation in check, and providing
the government some cushion for the next economic downturn.

Is this where you resume name calling, top posting and/or "snipping"
the thread?


T.Carr