The 2001 recession started two months into Bush's term. Do you really think that he did things in the first two months that led to an immediate recession? That is just silly. As for now...while things are BAD, a recession is predicted, but we are not presently in a recession. Those two things are what you are missing.
I guess you missed the vital piece of information here: National Bureau of Economic Research. As for not in a recession now. You seriously aren't making that argument, are you? Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I know what piss is. But refman you seem like you really believe the government when it says we aren't in a recession. Good for you. That's nice.
Oh and another thing, isn't it the republican M.O. to try to take credit for something that they didn't have anything to do with whatsoever. Like Regan was the real reason we had economic prosperity. What a joke. I ain't seen the dollar trickle down to me in years. I seen it line the weathly though. Explain to me how trickle down economics is suppose to work again. Oh I forgot, bush is gonna give me 400 dollars. I love trickle down economics.
lol I love going back and forth on economics with jr high students You're saying that Bush created the recession starting in March of 2001? Hilarious. Doesn't require any time to develop, huh? We're "still in a recession" today? we haven't been in an 8 year recession. We've had robust growth. Now growth has slowed and it's debatable whether or not we'll officially even get into recession territory, and if there is one, most predict it will be short lived and mild get a clue, brah
With $100-a-barrel here for now, Goldman Sachs says $200 a barrel could be a reality in the not-too-distant future in the case of a "major disruption." Goldman on Friday also boosted by $10 the low end of its 2008-2012 projected range for crude to $60 a barrel -- significantly lower than current prices, to be sure, but a possible mark for oil if "normalized" trends return to the marketplace. With the dollar's fall continuing and financial markets roiled by the credit crunch, commodities like oil have been drawing the fancy of increasing numbers of investors. Accordingly, Wall Street firms have been eager to adjust forecasts to incorporate fresh data on the global economy and energy supplies. Goldman analysts Arjun Murti, Kevin Koh and Michele della Vigna said prices have advanced more quickly than Goldman had forecast back in 2005, when it predicted a range of $50 to $105 a barrel as part of its "super-spike" oil theory. marketwatch
Personally, I think lowering taxes is good for almost everyone. That being said, I think this is good considering your post. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down
partially due to the fact that 1. increased demand from china and india 2. bush/bernake decided to torpedo the value of a dollar. 3. iraq war makes traders get jumpy at any hint of bad news. 1 + 2 + 3 = jacked up oil prices = we all pay at the pump = some people and their decendants will never have to work again.
I guess you are not only delusional you also have reading comprehension issues as well. National Bureau of Economic Research says that. Not me. I've said this three times and yet you still fail to get it. That's because you don't want to see it. Who is your expert on these matters? A bunch of republicans claiming it is all Clinton's fault???
this is tru. but the war in iraq + the torpedoing of the dollar play a significant role. also, im sure traders are taking advantage of the current global situation and squeezing out every single penny.
long on their own future prospects, short on ours... after spikes like these, the bottom usually drops out. but there seems to be no end in sight...
If you have more dollars then each dollar is worth less. Here is the definition: To decrease the value of (shares of stock) by increasing the total number of shares
lol at the bush(?)/bernanke reason for high oil i guess you're correct, in a way, since if bernanke hadn't lowered rates, oil would probably be at $60 a barrel, due to the horrible (much worse than our current mild spat) recession that we would have faced and the fact that US demand would have shriveled like a prune. The choice to lower rates was a very clear one that needed to be made (even sooner than it was imo).
Until you have had two consecutive quarters of economic contraction (loss of GDP, loss of jobs, etc) you simply aren't in a recession. That is basic economics. It doesn't come from the government. All of the financial muckety mucks are theorizing on whether or not we are going into recession. Nice try though. As for your subsequent rant...things were AWFUL when Carter was in the White House. As soon as Reagan got in, Iran freed the hostages, there were no more gasoline lines, and stagflation ended. Call it a coincidence if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
Good point, Refman. We're in what you might call the "liberal media induced recession"....it involves asking whether or not we're in a recession so many times that people begin to think that we are in fact in one
