Did Recession Begin in 2000? (Yes!)

CNN/Money ^ | January 22, 2004

[RWR8189]

Unofficial arbiter of recession dating considers extending latest recession, report says.

The committee of economists that sets the dates of U.S. recessions and expansions is considering moving the starting point of the latest recession to as early as November 2000 -- which, if true, could provide some political cover for President Bush.

[donozark]

Hey! I missed this! Thanks for posting. I'll send to RUSH-maybe he'll discuss?

[Semper Paratus]

Clinton claimed credit for the recovery that started before he was elected in '92.

[The South Texan]

They could move the start date of the reccession to Novemebr 1999 and the press and the Rats will still blame Bush for the recession. And at least 40% of the mind numbed American people will believe them

[Gordian Blade]

Even if the official start date is March 2001, no rational person would conclude that a new administration could cause a recession after only 1.5 months of taking charge. Oops, "rational," bad assumption.

[donozark]

The gap in Lauren Hutton's teeth just grew by a country mile!

[SierraWasp]

10:00AM U.S. leading indicators point to 'strong growth' by Rex Nutting

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Leading U.S. economic indicators rose 0.2 percent in December as expected, pointing to continued "strong growth," the Conference Board said Thursday. Seven of the 10 leading indicators increased in December, led by vender performance, stock prices and building permits. The money supply and manufacturing hours declined. "All indicators point to continued economic growth," said Ken Goldstein, economist for the board, who predicted stronger job growth, more consumer spending and healthy business investment in coming months.

[Republic Rocker]

No doubt Blade!

I still find it hard to stomach that the public and most media attach recession to BUSH......?

How hard is this formula..... Worst stock market crash in history + worst airplane crash's in history = not the doing of GWB04......

[Thoro]

I still find it hard to stomach that the public and most media attach recession to BUSH......?

In addition to that, the tech bubble burst before Bush and the corporate scandals were unexposed and operating at full steam before Bush. But how often does the media mention the batch of broken eggs Bush was handed once he took office?

How hard is this formula..... Worst stock market crash in history + worst airplane crash's in history = not the doing of GWB04......

It's not hard at all. It's just that it requires a brain and an operational memory capable of remembering 10+ years. Unfortunately, the media has neither, and the sheeple are too distracted by other things to notice what the media's been shoveling them.

[A. Pole]

I still find it hard to stomach that the public and most media attach recession to BUSH......?

Illegal alien amnesty providing cheap labor, stimulus from trade and budget deficit, Iraq war etc ... will fix all these problems.

[OldFriend]

The downturn in tech began in mid 1999..........

[OldFriend]

Greenspan raised taxes to prevent non existent inflation at the time when energy costs were rising. The rest is history and cannot be blamed on your pet peeves.

[lasereye]

The committee of economists that sets the dates of U.S. recessions and expansions is considering moving the starting point of the latest recession to as early as November 2000 -- which, if true, could provide some political cover for President Bush..

Even if the official start date is March 2001, no rational person would conclude that a new administration could cause a recession after only 1.5 months of taking charge. Oops, "rational," bad assumption.

Exactly. Not too much bias in that first sentence of the story is there - as though there has ever been a rational reason to blame Bush. Bush said in the period between the end of the Florida fiasco and his inauguration that the economy wasn't looking too hot, and therefore was an increased urgency to cut taxes. Gene Sperling, Clintoon's chief economic adviser, stated (lied) that the economy was strong and didn't need a tax cut.