IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / You must have a different definition than me.
Post #277,317
by Another Scott
1/3/07 6:22:03 PM
1/3/07 8:10:49 PM
Reply
New You must have a different definition than me.
;-)

[link|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls|Bureau of Economic Analysis] (XLS file):

Annual Percentage Change in GDP from previous period. 2000 Dollars.

Year  % Change\n1980\t-0.2\n1981\t2.5\n1982\t-1.9\n1983\t4.5\n1984\t7.2\n1985\t4.1\n1986\t3.5\n1987\t3.4\n1988\t4.1\n1989\t3.5\n1990\t1.9\n1991\t-0.2\n1992\t3.3\n1993\t2.7\n1994\t4.0\n1995\t2.5\n1996\t3.7\n1997\t4.5\n1998\t4.2\n1999\t4.5\n2000\t3.7\n2001\t0.8\n2002\t1.6\n2003\t2.5\n2004\t3.9\n2005\t3.2


The drop in Federal Revenue during Bush's term is overwhelmingly due to his tax cuts, not a recession. There wasn't a recession in 2001 - 2002 (at least not if you define recession as a drop in annual GDP growth).

[edit:] The wrong XLS file was linked previously.

Cheers,
Scott.
Expand Edited by Another Scott Jan. 3, 2007, 08:10:49 PM EST
Expand All History
Post #277,320
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
1/3/07 6:55:56 PM
Reply
New Definitions
3 consecutive quarters of neg growth=recession. Thats exactly what Bush was handed at when he took office. (I have the correct definition ;-)

Add to that the disaster that was the stock market and the self-destruction of the internet bubble. (my current employer is 60k employees smaller than when Bush took office).

There was no way to go but down for the fed coffers during Bush's first 2 years.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Post #277,324
by Another Scott
1/3/07 8:36:27 PM
Reply
New Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns)
Looking at the XLS file (at the [link|http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls|corrected link]), we see:

Year   GDP % Change (2000 dollars)\n\n1980q1\t 1.3\n1980q2\t-7.8\n1980q3\t-0.7\n1980q4\t 7.6\n1981q1\t 8.4\n1981q2\t-3.1\n1981q3\t 4.9\n1981q4\t-4.9\n1982q1\t-6.4\n1982q2\t 2.2\n1982q3\t-1.5\n1982q4\t 0.4\n1983q1\t 5.0\n1983q2\t 9.3\n1983q3\t 8.1\n1983q4\t 8.4\n1984q1\t 8.1\n1984q2\t 7.1\n1984q3\t 3.9\n1984q4\t 3.3\n1985q1\t 3.8\n1985q2\t 3.5\n1985q3\t 6.4\n1985q4\t 3.1\n1986q1\t 3.9\n1986q2\t 1.6\n1986q3\t 3.9\n1986q4\t 2.0\n1987q1\t 2.7\n1987q2\t 4.5\n1987q3\t 3.7\n1987q4\t 7.2\n1988q1\t 2.0\n1988q2\t 5.2\n1988q3\t 2.1\n1988q4\t 5.4\n1989q1\t 4.1\n1989q2\t 2.6\n1989q3\t 2.9\n1989q4\t 1.0\n1990q1\t 4.7\n1990q2\t 1.0\n1990q3\t 0.0\n1990q4\t-3.0\n1991q1\t-2.0\n1991q2\t 2.6\n1991q3\t 1.9\n1991q4\t 1.9\n1992q1\t 4.2\n1992q2\t 3.9\n1992q3\t 4.0\n1992q4\t 4.5\n1993q1\t 0.5\n1993q2\t 2.0\n1993q3\t 2.1\n1993q4\t 5.5\n1994q1\t 4.1\n1994q2\t 5.3\n1994q3\t 2.3\n1994q4\t 4.8\n1995q1\t 1.1\n1995q2\t 0.7\n1995q3\t 3.3\n1995q4\t 3.0\n1996q1\t 2.9\n1996q2\t 6.7\n1996q3\t 3.4\n1996q4\t 4.8\n1997q1\t 3.1\n1997q2\t 6.2\n1997q3\t 5.1\n1997q4\t 3.0\n1998q1\t 4.5\n1998q2\t 2.7\n1998q3\t 4.7\n1998q4\t 6.2\n1999q1\t 3.4\n1999q2\t 3.4\n1999q3\t 4.8\n1999q4\t 7.3\n2000q1\t 1.0\n2000q2\t 6.4\n2000q3\t-0.5\n2000q4\t 2.1\n2001q1\t-0.5\n2001q2\t 1.2\n2001q3\t-1.4\n2001q4\t 1.6\n2002q1\t 2.7\n2002q2\t 2.2\n2002q3\t 2.4\n2002q4\t 0.2\n2003q1\t 1.2\n2003q2\t 3.5\n2003q3\t 7.5\n2003q4\t 2.7\n2004q1\t 3.9\n2004q2\t 4.0\n2004q3\t 3.1\n2004q4\t 2.6\n2005q1\t 3.4\n2005q2\t 3.3\n2005q3\t 4.2\n2005q4\t 1.8\n2006q1\t 5.6\n2006q2\t 2.6\n2006q3\t 2.0


Based on the 3 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth standard, there hasn't been a recession since 1974q3 - 1975q1. You might want to pick a different definition as that one doesn't seem to be very useful. ;-) (The NBER uses [link|http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html|peaks and troughs].)

But the issue isn't the definition of recession and whether Bush faced one or not. The best historical comparison we can make on the effect of Bush's tax cuts is to compare it to Reagan.

Comparing the drops in GDP that Reagan faced (and the rise in Federal revenue he oversaw) and that faced by Bush (and the drop in Federal revenue he oversaw), it still seems, um, less than self-evident to me that Bush's tax cuts have had the claimed beneficial effect on revenue. Perhaps you could clear up my confusion by applying a metric to Bush's term and the same metric to Reagan's term and show that the rise in revenue under Reagan wasn't the direct result of his [link|http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp|tax increases].

I've about had my say on this. I'm sincerely interested in your counterpoint. I'll let you have the last word.

Cheers,
Scott.
Post #277,340
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
1/3/07 10:11:51 PM
Reply
New Re: Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns)
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession|http://en.wikipedia....y_2000s_recession]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
     More proof that Bush is living in Neverland. - (Another Scott) - (24) - Jan. 3, 2007, 11:50:53 AM EST
         He may be in Neverland - (bepatient) - (17) - Jan. 3, 2007, 12:03:09 PM EST
             Re: He may be in Neverland - (pwhysall) - (6) - Jan. 3, 2007, 12:05:26 PM EST
                 Clarification - (bepatient) - (5) - Jan. 3, 2007, 01:47:33 PM EST
                     Do you read/see the same news as me? - (pwhysall) - (4) - Jan. 3, 2007, 01:58:15 PM EST
                         That is not at issue - (bepatient) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2007, 05:57:39 PM EST
                             That's not what you said - (pwhysall) - (2) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:03:16 PM EST
                                 Ok. Opinion noted. - (bepatient) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:15:20 PM EST
                                     Right... It's a temporary increase - (hnick) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:38:58 PM EST
             It's not going to happen under a Bush proposal. - (Another Scott) - Jan. 3, 2007, 12:22:54 PM EST
             Stats on that? - (admin) - (7) - Jan. 3, 2007, 01:36:09 PM EST
                 CBO data was in the post above -NT - (bepatient) - (6) - Jan. 3, 2007, 01:44:55 PM EST
                     Funny how it took 1 year under Reagan but 5 under Bush. - (Another Scott) - (5) - Jan. 3, 2007, 02:00:15 PM EST
                         Can you say "recession". I knew you could. -NT - (bepatient) - (4) - Jan. 3, 2007, 05:58:23 PM EST
                             You must have a different definition than me. - (Another Scott) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2007, 08:10:49 PM EST
                                 Definitions - (bepatient) - (2) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:55:56 PM EST
                                     Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2007, 08:36:27 PM EST
                                         Re: Ok, we'll use that definition. (Long columns) - (bepatient) - Jan. 3, 2007, 10:11:51 PM EST
             You're using the total? - (Simon_Jester) - Jan. 3, 2007, 05:34:54 PM EST
         More from the Washington Post. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2007, 04:59:46 PM EST
             Typing and laughing at same time - (bepatient) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:12:00 PM EST
         Pure Politics.... - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2007, 05:29:11 PM EST
             Of course it is. -NT - (bepatient) - Jan. 3, 2007, 06:02:56 PM EST
             Exactly - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2007, 07:47:05 PM EST
                 Payback - (bepatient) - Jan. 3, 2007, 07:59:07 PM EST

A load of old toss.
96 ms