| Tempest |
03-27-2008 04:29 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADL Colin
(Post 13984359)
I'd agree with Bush on that one. He came into office on January 20, 2001 and according to the NBER the recession started March, 2001. It takes a lot longer for any policy to work through the huge economic system than that. What Bush policies set in those 38 days could have possibly caused the onset of a recession by march?
Anyway, economic activity seemed to have started to decline in late 2000 before Bush made it into office. For example, Industrial production peaked in October of 2000. Also, the Fed was getting tighter raising the discount rate from 5 1/2% to 6 1/2% in 2000.
But it was a really mild recession anyway so what does it really matter.
|
You missed my point... My point is that Bush simply remakes history to his own liking... When Clinton said a recession was on the way based on the economic slow down, Bush said no there wasn't... AFTER he won the election he then started to say what Clinton had been saying during the campaign... The recession didn't occur until after he was in office and yet he says he inherited a recession...
As for whether or not Bush had time to do something about it or not, that's debatable... The reality is that anything the politicians can do take a very long time to have any sort of effect... They just use the situation to put into law things they wanted to put into place to begin with... The Fed (which acted in Dec 2000) has more impact and they tend to work independently.. |
