A recession is defined by newspaper and magazines as two consecutive quarters of real GDP decline. It is defined by the NBER more broadly as "a significant decline in activity spread across the economy lasting more than a few months, visible in in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade."

 

A recession is a natural phase of the business cycle and can not be stopped. However, the negative effects of it can be reduced. It is hard to tell if we are actually in a recession now, it looks like we are heading that way (or are in one now) but the unemployment rate actually dropped between January and February (but it is impossible to say if this is due in part to discouraged workers).

 

It is impossible for tax cuts to cause a recession. Why would you raise the cost of goods (like tuition) to make up for tax revenue?

 

Revenue for state and local governments have declined so they have given less money to Universities who have in turn raised tuition to cover the cost of educating the people who pay tuition

We lose jobs because more US manufacturing jobs are going over seas to so-called low cost countries. The Bush administration has no control over this. This was a trend that was starting during the Clinton years, and just kept gaining momentum. It's not Clinton's fault, either. Any idiot knows that there will always be highs and lows in economic cycles. To expect to be on an up cycle constantly just shows how ignorant the "economic experts" really are. Common sense says when things are good, but some extra away for when things are bad. Econ 101, baby.

 

Why you gotta call someone an idiot?

 

I am just exploring the fact that in general, in general - the economy has not performed nearly as well the past 8 years as it did the previous 8 years. The cornerstone of the Bush economic policy was tax cuts. Why is that not given some responsibility in how the economy has performed?

Revenue for state and local governments have declined so they have given less money to Universities who have in turn raised tuition to cover the cost of educating the people who pay tuition

So, the cost of education has not risen because of inflationary pressures but because of states shifting costs from taxpayers to consumers of education? How is this related to the alleged Bush-tax-cut-induced-recession? Are you claiming that the resultant higher cost of tuition is to blame for the possible recession? :confused:

Revenue for state and local governments have declined so they have given less money to Universities who have in turn raised tuition to cover the cost of educating the people who pay tuition

 

That doesn't cost a recession. As I said, recessions can't be stopped, just the effects made worse or better.

 

As the economy nears the end of expansion, interest rates are usually rising and the wages of workers usually are rising faster than prices. As a result, profits of firms are falling. Typically, both households and firms have substantially increased their debts as a result of trying to help finance spending during the expansion.

 

Often, the recession begins with decline in spending by firms on capital goods. As spending declines, firms cut back on production and begin to lay off workers. Rising unemployment and falling profits reduce income, which leads to further declines in consumption spending as well.

 

You can make the argument that the tax cuts have made the recession worse, but you can't argue that the tax cuts caused the recession.

 

And, as a preemptive strike, the tax cuts have not made it worse. Recessions have been shorter and less severe since the 1950's, due to a few factors. Most of these factors have to do with allowing people without jobs to have more money- such as tax cuts. Since they have more money, they spend more than if they have no money, and this helps shorten recessions.

Why you gotta call someone an idiot?

 

I am just exploring the fact that in general, in general - the economy has not performed nearly as well the past 8 years as it did the previous 8 years. The cornerstone of the Bush economic policy was tax cuts. Why is that not given some responsibility in how the economy has performed?

 

That simply is not true. The economy has not performed better. I want to give you some statistics on why that is not true but there is so much to address that I don't know where to start. Can you give me some proof that the economy is not performing well?

That simply is not true. The economy has not performed better. I want to give you some statistics on why that is not true but there is so much to address that I don't know where to start. Can you give me some proof that the economy is not performing well?

:thumb: I am also anxious to see those statistics.

Why did the Clinton economic strategy perform so well?

 

Socialists, from an earlier post, have not been in control of the government. Republicans controlled both the Executive and legislative branches until 2006. I would venture to say those are not socialist people

 

What strategy is that? Tax the devil out of individuals and businesses? Let corporate fraud and the tech bubble go on unabated? That economy of the 90's should have been MUCH better if he had had a clue. It is truly amazing that business were able to overcome his roadblocks.

Here are some metrics to compare the U.S. economy over the last two Presidential administrations:

 

 

U.S. GDP Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.672%

1994 4.077%

1995 2.176%

1996 4.466%

1997 4.498%

1998 4.175%

1999 3.862%

2000 4.247%

 

Average: 3.77%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 0.751%

2002 1.598%

2003 2.705%

2004 4.216%

2005 3.525%

2006 3.5%

2007 3.2%

 

Average: 2.79%

 

 

 

Per Capita Income Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 1.35%

1994 2.76%

1995 1.30%

1996 2.50%

1997 3.26%

1998 2.97%

1999 3.26%

2000 2.54%

 

Average: 2.49%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 -0.20%

2002 0.66%

2003 1.57%

2004 2.69%

2005 2.12%

2006 1.94%

2007 1.09%

 

Average: 1.77%

 

 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) Growth Rate comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.99%

1994 2.56%

1995 2.83%

1996 2.95%

1997 2.29%

1998 1.56%

1999 2.21%

2000 3.36%

 

Average: 2.60%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 2.85%

2002 1.58%

2003 2.28%

2004 2.66%

2005 3.39%

2006 3.23%

2007 2.80%

 

Average: 2.68%

 

Source for data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/

Here are some metrics to compare the U.S. economy over the last two Presidential administrations:

 

 

U.S. GDP Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.672%

1994 4.077%

1995 2.176%

1996 4.466%

1997 4.498%

1998 4.175%

1999 3.862%

2000 4.247%

 

Average: 3.77%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 0.751%

2002 1.598%

2003 2.705%

2004 4.216%

2005 3.525%

2006 3.5%

2007 3.2%

 

Average: 2.79%

 

 

 

Per Capita Income Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 1.35%

1994 2.76%

1995 1.30%

1996 2.50%

1997 3.26%

1998 2.97%

1999 3.26%

2000 2.54%

 

Average: 2.49%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 -0.20%

2002 0.66%

2003 1.57%

2004 2.69%

2005 2.12%

2006 1.94%

2007 1.09%

 

Average: 1.77%

 

 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) Growth Rate comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.99%

1994 2.56%

1995 2.83%

1996 2.95%

1997 2.29%

1998 1.56%

1999 2.21%

2000 3.36%

 

Average: 2.60%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 2.85%

2002 1.58%

2003 2.28%

2004 2.66%

2005 3.39%

2006 3.23%

2007 2.80%

 

Average: 2.68%

 

Source for data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/

Thank you for bringing numbers into this. :thumb: Obviously, I am know expert on the economy and know very little about it. I do know that, strangely enough, the Clinton administration experienced no recessions. You may call me biased but I do not think it is possible for a President (or Congress) to prevent or cause a recession. Likewise, it is hard to gauge how long it takes for economic policies to truly take their effect on the economy.

 

One thing that I will point out is that all of the numbers improve after 2001 and 2003, which could (but may not be) a result of the tax cuts.

 

The only thing that I am sure of is that Bush's tax cuts DID NOT cause a recession. It is not possible.

 

But you have provided some solid numbers on the state of the economy in Clinton's term and in Bush's term. I will need to defer to someone who is more experienced in economics than me to answer the question as to why.

I agree with cc5432. The only things a President can do to effect the economy is to increase reguations and/or taxes which both take away money that can be used to expand a business,but now the money is not there to expand. The other thing a President can do is to reduce regulations and/or taxes, which allows businesses to have more money to expand and create jobs and a larger tax base.

 

Now comes the big arguement how much is to much or too little. In recent years we have some (who by the way are hypocrites) like John Edwards who raol against big business. Saying they make too much money or the bosses make too much. If a person or a business creates a product or a service that is of value and the public want it, the money is theirs.

 

The reason I call Edwards a hypocrite is that he is among the richest in the country by suing people. While he may be helping individuals, he takes huges sums for himself. If he is so righteous he could take less of a fee for his salary, which he claims the CEOs of big companies should be doing.

I also wish to add there are trillion of economic decisions made every day by the citizens every day that the government has no control over. These decisions have far more impact on the economy than government policy.

 

I will never understand why people want the government to do for the when they can do it for theirselves. Yes there is a need to have laws and regulations and government services, but when you try to nitpick every little thing, you just create undue burdens on people and businesses.

 

While I am for as little government as possible, I believe we should help the less forunate on a limited basis, except for those who are handicapped and need long term help.

Well Bush is giving us a tax rebate! To stimulate the oil industry. At least thats where it will go , in your gas tank !Lenders have probably created part of this problem by giving housing loans way to eagerly out of greed. They knew some of these people couldn't pay when they gave them these varible loans. Now they are crying the blues and the government will more that likely bail some of them out ! Wal-Mart and some of the big retailers share some of the blame by putting the small buisness shops out, and have also forced some manufacturing out by squeezing their wholesale prices to death. The auto industry has been busy trying to keep up with each other building too many different models making retooling expenses sky rocket and passing the cost on to us. And like a bunch of dummies we keep paying their prices. WHO IS TO BLAME ? We may share some of this fault !

Tax cuts did not cause the recession. A terribly weak dollar is the main problem. Heck, even the Canadian Dollar is worth more than the US Dollar. I thing the stimulous package is a very bad idea and will only further weaken the dollar. However, I'll take my $1200.

Oil will be the push we needed for the recession

Here are some metrics to compare the U.S. economy over the last two Presidential administrations:

 

 

U.S. GDP Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.672%

1994 4.077%

1995 2.176%

1996 4.466%

1997 4.498%

1998 4.175%

1999 3.862%

2000 4.247%

 

Average: 3.77%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 0.751%

2002 1.598%

2003 2.705%

2004 4.216%

2005 3.525%

2006 3.5%

2007 3.2%

 

Average: 2.79%

 

 

 

Per Capita Income Growth Rates comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 1.35%

1994 2.76%

1995 1.30%

1996 2.50%

1997 3.26%

1998 2.97%

1999 3.26%

2000 2.54%

 

Average: 2.49%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 -0.20%

2002 0.66%

2003 1.57%

2004 2.69%

2005 2.12%

2006 1.94%

2007 1.09%

 

Average: 1.77%

 

 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) Growth Rate comparing 1993-2000 to 2001-2007 (source-USDA):

 

Clinton Presidency

1993 2.99%

1994 2.56%

1995 2.83%

1996 2.95%

1997 2.29%

1998 1.56%

1999 2.21%

2000 3.36%

 

Average: 2.60%

 

Bush 43 Presidency

2001 2.85%

2002 1.58%

2003 2.28%

2004 2.66%

2005 3.39%

2006 3.23%

2007 2.80%

 

Average: 2.68%

 

Source for data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/

 

One minor point being left out is the Ten Trillion dollar hit to our markets due to September 11th. Quite amazing that we managed through that and the treasury took in record dollars in 2007.