Bush inherited "near calamitus" economic situation?!

[Lin]

So says "Tim Adams" Bush/Cheney policy advisor on Faux News "Cavuto Your World" just now. What the hell how far can they go in stretching the truth?

[kwolf68]

1. .

:freak:

[Rambis]

2. It's all Ron stupid

Everything Clinton did he got from the Reagan economic legacy and everything W got is from Clinton legacy, no wait scratch that its all Clinton's fault:)

[papau]

3. Last I looked Clinton had no recession - and Bush did not have 2 qtrs

of economic contraction - the definition per the Wall Street Journal of a recession - during his term (a different definition gets you a weak 6 month recession from March to Oct of 01)

On Fox they do not stretch the truth - they just make up lies.

:-)

[NewHampshireDem]

4. Hey, if * is good at anything, it should be inheriting stuff ...

Seriously, he's been saying that since he came into office. He talked us into a recession, which was a good strategy. You say the economic end is near and if it materializes, you can say you inherited it ... if it doesn't, you can claim your actions averted it.

However, I doubt anyone who hasn't already had their share of the Kool-Aide really believes that garbage. Even if they do, the argument that * has done well getting this nation out of it is pretty easy to refute when you take a look around.

[jimshoes]

5. They're not stretching the truth you know

they're flat out lying.

[Jacobin]

6. Yeah. That surplus was just killing us!

And the unemployment rate was so low, that most people could get jobs!

Not to mention, the stock market was high and lots of investors had large capital gains.


It was awful!!

I remember it well.

"The 8 year nightmare of peace and prosperity were finally over when King George was crowned"

[MO_Dem]

7. He must have misread the line

Should have read "Bush caused "near calamitous" economic situation"!

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Hey, the market for squid is awful! n/t

[moobu2]

8. Clinton's faultism

[buycitgo]

9. what happened to the more believable it was 911

that caused it

was there anybody there to provide a different point of view

silly question, I know

[Lin]

12. Nobody refuted him b/c it was Cavuto he was lying to, I know they

have been saying recessionrecessionrecession....but NEAR CALAMITUS?! <exact quote> The ecomony was healthy when this poisonous treasonous $%^&*( stole the election and slithered in.

It's as Fox/Repubs push and when they get away with THAT lie, well THEN they can enhance even further, pretty soon up is down and sky's not blue! I'm so SICK of being lied to damnit :(

(sorry rant)

[library_max]

16. The stock market was tanking in the spring, before 9/11. /nt

[MichiganVote]

10. So cutting the taxes of the rich is useful?

[librechik]

11. bu bu but their own economists say there WAS no recession !

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:a0J0zSFXeUIJ:www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2711735+%22no+recession%22&hl=en

excerpt from the Houston Chronicle:

"Under revised data released by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the GDP did not decline for three consecutive quarters in 2001 as the old data had showed. In fact, the GDP didn't post consecutive declines at all.

The new data show that the GDP fell at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2001, then rose at an annual rate of 1.2 percent in the second quarter and fell again at a rate of 1.4 percent in the third quarter.

The old data had the GDP falling at annual rates of 0.2 percent in the first quarter, 0.6 percent in the second quarter and 1.3 percent in the third quarter.

That would fit the often-cited definition of a recession as a downturn in economic activity represented by at least two consecutive quarters of falling GDP.

It also matched the period in which the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of recessions, said the country was in a slump, which it dated as starting in March 2001 and ending in November of that year.

That would put the start of the recession two months after Bush took office. The president and others in his administration have argued that the recession began earlier. They note that last year's GDP revision showed economic output had registered its first decline in the third quarter of 2000, during former President Clinton's administration, falling at a rate of 0.5 percent."

end excerpt

[buycitgo]

14. ERGO......no RECESSION at ALL!!!!

why don't dems have that at their fingertips, whenever they repeat that lie?

I'm so sick of the Dukakis, I mean Kerry campaign

did you see Jane HarMAN on MTP?

how embarrassing

[Daisey Mae]

13. real far....