On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:33:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:10:14 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
You're so cute when you do economics, Gunner. g Most economists say
that
the trouble showed up in the second quarter of 2000, although the first
actual decline in GDP occurred in 2001.
Your so cute when you only look at Democrat spew when trying to make a
case....
Gunner, you wouldn't know economic "spew" if you slipped and fell in it.
What's funny here is that you have all of these quotes from sources I'm
reasonably sure you don't read (The Economist is not on many peoples'
reading lists, for example, and the Washington Post is the "rag" you've
cited before as hopelessly liberal -- and now you're quoting from one of its
editorials, of all things? Get real.)
I'm not going to glorify the bottom-dredgings you've yanked off of some
neocon blog by answering each one, but your first one is a doozy, so we'll
just tackle that one and let it stand for the rest:
ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON
Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)
I have a subscription to The Economist, so I just looked that article up.
It's a story about how the economy declined in 2001, not in 2000. The quote
you yanked from somewhere in cybersapce says that GDP rose by 3.8%. For
God's sake, Gunner, that's around 0.3% higher than conservative economists
thought was *healthy* just four or five years ago. 3.8% is an excellent rate
of growth for an advanced economy, by any standards. All that the comment
concerned was a revision in the Commerce Dept.'s earlier estimates.
In no way, shape or form did the article say, or even suggest, that the
economy was "shrinking" when Clinton was in office. In fact, the graph that
accompanies the article shows that GDP was growing at about 4.5% (the
revised figure, which is what the article really is about) when Clinton left
office. You could confirm this for yourself in about ten minutes by going to
the DoC site and checking the figures.
If you want, I'll send you the HTML version of the article so you can see
the whole thing, and the graph. If nothing else, it might give you pause
next time you pull quotes from the blogs. They're mostly full of crap, and
you'd do yourself a favor to lay off of them, anyway.
Ed Huntress
The figures that article gave were verbatim. And any figures sited by
the DoC before the elections is subject to the spin put on it by the
Clinton administration. Short term bonds, etc etc are all part of
that spin. The growth of the economy was the result of the Dot Com
bubble expansion in your figures, and shortly thereafter..It popped.
Much of the "surplus" was projected income , primarily from Capital
Gains taxes that never materialized due to the bubble busting. Which
is one of the reasons that California is in so damned much trouble.
They spent a "projected" surplus that failed to materialize, and when
the time came to pay the bills..the money was not in the kiddy.
Do you consider Insight Magazine a Blog?
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/158410.html
I do tend to browse around the net, on diverse subjects that catch my
fancy. Hell..Ive got not much else to do, while waiting for the phone
to ring.
Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?
I noticed your failure to mention it.....
Gunner
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto