Doh!!! What now?

[vegetablebelay]

From today's issue of Investor's Business Daily

 

Revoltin' Revision

 

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

 

Government Statistics: For Democrats who thought they had co-opted the economy as an issue, the news just keeps getting worse. Even the old news.

 

Take Wednesday's announcement by the Commerce Department that revisions to official figures show the U.S. was on the brink of recession months earlier than previously thought.

 

Specifically, the changes show that GDP shrank 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000 vs. previous estimates of 0.6% growth.

 

Until now, statisticians at Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis believed the economy did not start shrinking until early 2001.

 

Now let us explain that loud "Doh!" you heard from Democratic national headquarters.

 

It was about this time three years ago, when the Clintons were moving out of the White House and the Bushes were moving in, that the president- and vice president-elect came under fire for suggesting the economy was not as strong as generally portrayed.

 

"There are," George W. Bush said on Dec. 5, 2000, "some warning signs about our economy that I think we ought to take seriously."

 

He was echoing running mate Dick Cheney, who two days earlier cited "growing evidence that the economy is slowing down" and postulated that "we may well be on the edge of recession."

 

The outgoing administration did not take kindly to these assessments. Growth in the Clinton years, after all, had averaged 4%, a spokesman protectively reminded the bumptious newcomers. And, not to put too fine a point on it, he noted that the first Bush administration was able to manage only a 1.7% gain. What's more, he said, private-sector economists saw growth of 2.5% in 2001.

 

Even Clinton himself got into the act a couple of weeks later. Appearing with Bush at the White House on Dec. 21, Clinton said it was unlikely the nation was headed for a recession. "The president spoke with a smile on his face," according to one report, "while Bush sat by silently."

 

More than historical accuracy was at stake. By "talking down" the economy, according to Clinton's chief economic adviser, Bush and Cheney were trying to "gain short-term political positioning" for the $1.3 trillion tax cut they were pushing and Congress was resisting.

 

To his credit, Bush stuck to his guns. "In all due respect, I have said that there are some warning signs on the horizon," he told members of Congress. "I think people are going to find out that when I'm sworn in as the president, I'll be a realist. And if there are warning signs on the horizon, we need to pay attention to them."

 

Today, with growth revving near a 20-year high, thanks in large part to the tax cuts Bush eventually got through, we should all be glad that realism reigned and attention was paid.

 

www.investors.com

 

[scrambler]

Seems I read somewhere, maybe Forbes, that Greenspan was the cause of the recession or contributed to it by loosening too much credit (thereby increasing liquidity)before the turn of the millenium (1999 or so). I'm not an economist or understand economics (though strive to) so don't quote me on this.

Edited December 11, 2003 by scrambler

[erik]

scrambler said:

Seems I read somewhere, maybe Forbes, that Greenspan was the cause of the recession or contributed to it by loosening too much credit before the turn of the millenium (1999 or so). I'm not an economist or understand economics (though strive to) so don't quote me on this.

 

too late dude....you're quoted.

 

[scrambler]

Zounds!!!

 

or rather--Doh!!!

Edited December 11, 2003 by scrambler

[Doctorb]

Let me know when you right wing twats are done jerking each other off, and I'll tell you how it is.

[scrambler]

Jerk this off, Dr Orb