Yay!

Kerry was a terrible campaigner. We can certainly do better for a Democratic Nominee.

Not to say that he wouldn't still have been a far better President than Bush, but i think most everyone realizes that by now.

One less piece of garbage in the mix.

In an otherwise depressing post-SOTU day, finally a piece of genuinely good news! Bring on Barack in '08!!

Great!!! One less anti-American senator to hear from.
Paulo

Glad he is gone.
Worst campaigner ever.

Would have been miles ahead of Bush as POTUS, however.

Paulo the only anti=American around here is you.

Say what you will about him but Kerry would have been a better President than Paulo's Republican hero, George W. Cheerleader.

Get word out to Leno, Letterman, and Paulo about the impact of blown jokes.

C.Morris, I usually don't disagree with you, but I feel I must.

Dukakis was the worst campaigner ever.

Kerry was maybe the second worst, Bob Dole could give him a challenge.

I hope Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico gets the democratic nomination. That guy set the world record for number of handshakes in one day. I would vote for him on that alone.

No bad joke goes unpunished. Yet another out of touch with the real world guy will go back to the Senate.

Regardless of Kerry's qualifications for president, I'm particularly glad that we'll have one less senator more concerned with his (or HER!) own campaign than with the important business at hand for the US Senate. And Kerry has for the most part been a tremendous force for good in the Senate over the years (his disastrous, though not unique, vote to authorize our Iraqi misadventure notwithstanding).

Aw golly gee boo hoo! No Lurch in 2008? No Botox Rex The Ketchup King? No badly mistimed jokes? No Teresa The Terrible antics? Man, Indecision 2008 just got dull dull dull.

My nomination?

Edwards - pres
Obama - vice pres

Get 'em together. Obama doesn't have the necessary experience yet, and that will hamper him on the campaign trail. I say this from an impartial observer standpoint, not with malice. I like Obama and would love for him to win. But this is what the harpies will feast on when they plot their negative ad campaigns. And it will resonate with people who aren't that familiar with his policies.

Edwards has the name recognition, he's dynamic, a great speaker. He could do it.

Go, go, go!

Let's see, who is better Kerry or Bush?
George Bush: stock market at an all-time high, now over 12,600.
John Kerry: More than likely stock market would be crashing.
George Bush: Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 for ALL Americans.
John Kerry: Tax INCREASES for ALL Americans.
George Bush: "I will not relent in taking the fight to the terrorists."
John Kerry: "I actually voted to take the fight to the terrorists before I decided we should just reason with them and give them cookies and crumpets."
George Bush: Terrorists on the run.
John Kerry: Terrorists rejoice, just as they did when the Democrats won Congress in 2006.
George Bush: Growing economy every quarter since 2001.
John Kerry: Economic recession.
George Bush: Unemployment at 4.4 percent, while averaging out the unemployment during his six years it is lower than any period since 1950s.
John Kerry: Unemployment over 6 percent during the recession he would have created with his TAX Increases and more government red tape.
George Bush: success against terrorists in Somalia.
John Kerry: Terrorists continue to run Somalia and now Kenya.
George Bush: budget deficits continue to spiral downward as economy grows, government rakes in record tax revenue and spending increases fall within 2 percent a year.
John Kerry: budget deficits escalate as tax increases stall economy.

Somehow the facts prove George Bush is a much better president than John Kerry ever would have been.

james,

Edwards has all the lack of experience issues that Obama does. He dropped out of his Senate race to run for Pres. because he knew he would lose.

The only person Barack Obama should consider playing second fiddle to is Al Gore. If not, he should be heading the ticket as the next best hope.

I know I'm an idiot.

Fox News made me that way.

What can I say?

Luke B-

I'm with you, Richardson is the man. He's get all the right kinds of experience.

Unfortunately he is going to get drowned out by HRC & Obama (nothing against them) in the media.

John D --

you must be getting your facts straight from Dick Cheney's propoganda machine:

Stock market at all time high: yeah, in the short term war is always good for manufacturing and the military-industrial complex;

Tax cuts for all Americans: except 90% of them went to the top 5% of incomes, the average citizen didn't get enough to offset Bush 's buddies in the oil business's $1+ jump in gas prices while they reaped record windfalls [in part because "W"s regulators neglected to enforce public leases or collect taxes from big oil];

Budget deficits down: not quite, combined with record earmark spending "W"s tax cuts created largest deficit EVER and record high for national debt.

"W"s a typical conservative: every millionaire has the right to make as much money on the backs of the working poor and not be taxed for it; and a typical Republican: steal it if you can't give it to your buddies.

If John Kerry were President, Iraq would be a flowering democracy, the terrorists would put down all their weapons and become loving, charitable citizens, the greenhouse effect would already be reversed and everybody would have won the lottery.

With GWB, none of those things have happened.

Those are indisputable facts John D.

I'm saddened that sKerry will not be running again. I was desperately hoping I would be entertained by his idiotic flip flopping. I can only hope that Hillary "Rodham" can rise to the challenge! The Defeatocrats will be creamed in 2008. You read it here first.

John D,

"Somehow the facts prove George Bush is a much better president than John Kerry ever would have been."

We would have all been pleaseatly surprised (well, completely shocked actually) to see you actually lay down some "facts," but your post offers nothing of the sort.

For fun, I'll play your stupid game. Al Gore is President instead of George Bush in 2001

Gore: Al Qaeda is the number one threat to America.
Bush: Too little arsenic in the drinking water, too much contraception use in family planning clinics, and missile attacks from the Soviet Union are the number 1 threats.
Gore: Responds militarily to the USS Cole bombings.
Bush: Says he's tired of swatting flies and ignores the threat until 9/11.
Gore: Richard Clarke, the government's point man on Bin Laden, maintains his position and continues to be a part of Cabinet briefings.
Bush: Clarke is demoted and cut out of Cabinet meetings.
Gore: Realizes the terrorist threat system is "blinking red," cuts his 2 week August vacation short.
Bush: Hearing that the system is blinking red, maintains his annual 5 week summer vacation.
Gore: Understanding the threat, he notifies the airlines and puts the government on high alert.
Bush: Ignores the threat until America is hit.
Gore: Orders the available planes to shoot down the hijacked plane heading for the Pentagon.
Bush: Lets Cheney tell them to stand down.
Gore: Sends an overwhelming, Powell Doctrine sized force to topple the Taliban and catch Bin Laden.
Bush: Sends a light, "shock and awe," Rumsfeld-doctrine force and outsources the capture of Bin Laden to local Afghanis.
Gore: "President Musharaf, we are surrounding Tora Bora. If tribal troops fire on coalition forces, they will be shot immediately.
Bush: "Please, General, please please please catch Osama for us."
Gore: Cuts taxes progressively, pay down Social Security and the national debt. The ensuing ecnonomic growth is second only that that which occured while Mr. Gore was vice-president.
Bush: Regressive tax cuts, designed almost exclusively for the most wealthy, increase poverty while providing extremely modest economic growth and job creation.
Gore: Consistently vetoes pork-filled legislation from the Republican Congress, keeping the government in the black.
Bush: Signs every pork-filled boondoggle that crosses his desk.
Gore: Rallies the nation after the 9/11 attacks, demanding sacrifices from all Americans to fight the shadowy enemy.
Bush: Tells Americans to go shopping.
Gore: Devotes the nation to a Manhattan Project for clean, renewable energy.
Bush: Invades Iraq to secure the oil supply.
Gore: Reelected with an overwhelming mandate.
Bush: Reelected with the smallest margin in several generations.
Gore: Fiscally responsible, he balances the budget by bringing in appropriate revenue to fund the obligations of the government.
Bush: Digs the nation into a financial blackhole, borrowing money like a gambling addict and spending it like a drunken sailor.
Gore: Fixes social security.
Bush: Ignores social security.
Gore: Decreases the national debt.
Bush: Increases national debt by nearly 3-fold.
etc. etc. etc.

Bubba,

Ever wonder what Bill Sali's 'thoughts' are on this?

John D,

Great posts.

Bryan - you made my day.,

Let's try yours again:

Gore: Al Qaeda is the number one threat to America. Which brown suit should I wear today.
Bush: Al Qaeda is the number one threat to America. Go bomb the hell out of the damn terrorists.
Gore: Responds militarily to the USS Cole bombings. - 6 years later after he has successfully sued the makers of Love Story for back royalities.
Bush: Responds militarily to the USS Cole bombings - after 9-11 Go bomb the hell out of the damn terrorists.
Gore: Richard Clarke, the government's point man on Bin Laden, maintains his position and continues to be a part of Cabinet briefings. Time to go solve Global Warming - Gee I'll make a movie.
Bush: Unlike the previous administartion, go after they attack again.
Gore: Realizes the terrorist threat system is "blinking red," cuts his 2 week August vacation short. His vacation down a stream he had to have flooded for his canoing photo op. Damn, that things been blinking red for years - probably bad wiring.
Bush: Bombs the hell out of the terrorist.
Gore: Understanding the threat, he notifies the airlines and puts the government on high alert. Does not change the rules allowing box cutters on planes. Wonder if he would have know to shut down the airports exactly on September 11th?
Bush: Ignores the threat until America is hit. Bombs the hell out of the terrorist.
Gore: Orders the available planes to shoot down the hijacked plane heading for the Pentagon. HAd to first consult Naomi Wolf on which earth tone to wear first.
Bush: Lets Cheney tell them to stand down. Plane still crashed. Push.
Gore: Sends an overwhelming, Powell Doctrine sized force to topple the Taliban and catch Bin Laden. Powell Doctrine? Would still be under Madeline "400 lb leg-press" NotSoBright. She would want to make sure she had permission from Iran, North Korea, and Cuba first.
Bush: Sends a light, "shock and awe," Rumsfeld-doctrine force and outsources the capture of Bin Laden to local Afghanis. Has OBL pinned up in a cave at 20,000 feet.
Gore: "President Musharaf, we are surrounding Tora Bora. If tribal troops fire on coalition forces, they will be shot immediately. Never would have found Tora Bora. Isn't that an island in the Pacific?
Bush: "Please, General, please please please catch Osama for us." - Bombed the hell out of the terroists.
Gore: Cuts taxes progressively, pay down Social Security and the national debt. The ensuing ecnonomic growth is second only that that which occured while Mr. Gore was vice-president. Watches recession started under his watch as V-P grow for a couple years until Republicans win 70% of the Congressional Seats (including 2 in Chicago). Makes Jimmy Carter look like economic genius. Brings back the term misery index. However, he does have a key to the lockbox.
Bush: Regressive tax cuts, designed almost exclusively for the most wealthy (proportionate to those who pay income taxes), decreased poverty while providing extremely steady economic growth and fabulous job creation - unemployment at 4.5%.
Gore: Consistently vetoes pork-filled legislation from the Republican Congress, keeping the government in the black. One could only hope, but probably not.
Bush: Signs every pork-filled boondoggle that crosses his desk.
Gore: Rallies the nation after the 9/11 attacks, demanding sacrifices from all Americans to fight the shadowy enemy. Taxes all Americans to death, leading to more estate taxes. Puts Tipper in charge of destoying all albums and 8-tracks by Islamic rock groups.
Bush: Tells Americans to go shopping and stimulate the economy and get the economy baxck on track after the slowdown it has been for the past twelve months.
Gore: Devotes the nation to a Manhattan Project for clean, renewable energy. Does he require that windmills be put up outside the Kennedy compound on Cape Cod? Taxes gasoline, gas is plentiful but at $6.00/gallon, Americans resort to horses. Global Warming increases from increased methane from all the horse do-do and the adddition postings on liberal blogs.
Bush: Invades Iraq to secure the oil supply. Believes that drilling in ANWAR and off the gulf coasts will increase supply and lower dependency on foriegn oil.
Gore: Loses 2004 election by an overwhelming mandate. Makes Reagan/Mondale look like a close one
Bush: Reelected with the smallest margin in several generations. garners most votes in nations history. Wins by over 3,000,000 in spite of vote scandal in Wisconsin.
Gore: Fiscally irresponsible, in spite of vetoing all the earmarked bills, his tax increases have reduced tax revenues as economy becomes worse since FDR.
Bush: Nation has small deficit and has made vow to start vetoing earmarked legislation (one can only hope).
Gore: Doubles social security taxes, economy tanks - can't figure out why revenues aren't coming in. However, has key to empty lockbox.
Bush: Gets social security to disslove. Private accounts for everyone, economy booms, Dow hits 15,000. Unemployment at 3%
Gore: Increases the national debt, econonmy down the tubes. Asks Commrade Castro for economic advice
Bush: National debt nearly eliminated due to growing economy - see above. Country doing so well, that repeal of the 22nd Amendment is being strongly considered.

Terry,

Humorous list. Diggin' pretty deep, but I give credit for trying.

Of course, all of the economic policies you loathe so much were actually implemented, in the real world, to marked success in the years before Mr. Gore's election. I'm sure its just a coincidence and the doomsayers such as yourself who were all proven completely wrong the first time around (1993- 2000) would turn out to be correct on the second go-round. That is really the Bush Doctrine, after all, keep trying the same thing over and over again (with ever-shifting rationales) and expect different results each time.

"National debt nearly eliminated due to growing economy - see above." Since the debt has tripled since the policies you advocate have been enacted, when can we expect this debt to be eliminated? I'll be even more gentle, when shall we expect it to be cut in half, which would leave it almost twice as high as when Mr. Bush took office? When are the policies you advocate going to start having the effect that you expect, as opposed to the opposite (exponentially exploding debt)??

Here is a link to a graph of the national debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html The facts are indistibutable, yet flat-earthers such as yourself choose to willfully ignore them, hoping that something different will happen the next time. Essentially all of this nation's debt over the last 50 years has been signed into law by Republican presidents.

"Regressive tax cuts, designed almost exclusively for the most wealthy decreased poverty" see linked graph. Your assertion is a bold-faced lie (though at least you acknowledge that the tax cuts are skewed to the wealthy) and you should be ashamed to propagate such an obvious fallacy. Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate have conistently gone up for the last 6 years, after falling for the previous 7 years.

"while providing extremely steady economic growth and fabulous job creation"
Job growth under Bush slower than under Clinton, Reagan
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/08/bush.job.count.ap/index.html
POSTED: 4:37 p.m. EST, January 8, 2007

"- unemployment at 4.5%." Up from 4% upon taking office.

Terry, please try not to lie so blatantly, it does a gross disservice to your cause. Why is reality so consistently unfriendly to Republicans?

Terry,

Make sure you leave all the $$$ you made under the Republican Chimp in a Flightsuit Whitehouse (tax cuts for the rich)for your grandkids.

They'll need it to pay off the GOP Iraq war which is being charged on a credit card in care of China,Saudi Arabia,Japan etc....in fact Terry,just teach them how to speak Chinese right now and get it over with.

circa 1985
"I'm turning Japanese,yes I'm turning Japanese,I'm turning Japanese I really think so"

Those guys really did know what they were talking about,who would have thunk it?

Bryan,

Trying and succeeding.

1990's Economy for $200:

President Clinton inherited a recovery economy - about 18 months removed from a recession.

President Clinton was in office during the great economic driver called the personal computer and internet.

President Clinton left office with an economic downturn in the last 1/2 of 2000. Negative GDP growth in 3rd quarter.

Unemployment lags GDP, that is why unemployment was still low as the economy was tanking in 2000. Never said unemployment was lower under President Bush.

Actually, President Clinton not only raised income taxes on the rich, but also on the middle class and poor. Remember he is the one that put a tax on Social Security benefits. He also raised gasoline taxes, which impact the poor more than the rich.

The national debt and deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Gov't revenues have grown at a very helathy clip. Something you non-math people might not understand.

The people that are in poverty in our country are middle class in most others.

No lies, just facts.

"President Clinton was in office during the great economic driver called the personal computer and internet."

It was so sad when they disappeared from the economy on the day Bush took office. Having to snail mail The Swamp is so much more work.

"Gov't revenues have grown at a very helathy clip. Something you non-math people might not understand."

Read and weep Mr. Mathematician.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06bud.htm

And Terry, I'm sure you'll cherry pick out one sentance that makes things sound all rosy and bright, but try to educate yourself about the real situation.

"The people that are in poverty in our country are middle class in most others.
"

Those greedy poor people! Who do they think they are wanting to be able to feed their families, have access to doctors, and have some decent shelter? They should be living in a filthy shack like the rest of the poor people! Don't these people have any sense of sacrifice? Asking for social services when Paris Hilton needs another Bentley. The very nerve!

Government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy, right Terry?

John D.

The facts just keep rolling in to dicount your conservative ideologically-driven propaganda intended to prop up the failed regime of "W" --

You write lower unemployment under "W"?

The Facts:
"WASHINGTON, JAN 25, 2007 - The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits shot up last week by THE LARGEST AMOUNT IN 16 MONTHS . . .

The Labor Department reported Thursday that 325,000 newly laid-off workers filed claims for jobless benefits last week, an increase of 36,000 from the previous week."

Bush not only can't speak, he can't write: he has made starting the word 'FAILURE' with the letter "W" obligatory.

Terry,

Of course every bit of your response is spin, with no facts evident whatsoever. That is because ALL of the data belies your argument. Note you do not dispute any of my FACTS concerning the Bush economy, nor any of the FACTS from the Clinton economy.

Terry, seriously, just look at the results. I have watched you try to spin this issue like a hamster, but none of the data support your hypotheses, and all of the data contradicts it.

IF RAISING TAXES IS AN ECONOMY- KILLER, WHY DID THE TAX INCREASES OF THE 1990'S NOT RESULT IN DISASTER?? Oh I know: PC's, Reagan, black magic, dumb luck...

Mr. Bush has created a NET 3.6 million jobs compared with 10 million under Reagan and 18 million under Clinton at this point in their terms. That cannot be considered "strong" economic growth, especially when you consider that the stimulus has been BORROWED and therefore must be repaid with interest, creating a further burden on the budget.

"The national debt and deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem."

Do you run your business, or does your boss run his/her business, using only one side of the balance sheet? Give me a break Mr. Economics 101.

Tony,

You obviously have never taken a business or economics class. There is a thing called a business cycle of products and industries. When a successful product is introduced into the marketplace, it has a very good growth rate, but after a while the product starts to saturate the market and slow down. The personal computer and internet which was in too many peoples' homes in the early 1990's was a std appliance by the year 2000. The growth of the PC has slowed down. Therefore, even though there still are PC's and the internet, it does not have the same impact of GDP growth.

Federal Revenue growth has increased since the Bush Tax cuts of 2003. Revenues went down in 2001 due to the recession, dropped in 2002-03 (take note Bryan those even dollar tax break don't work). From 2004-06, gov't revenues have been grwoing at near or better double digit growth.

I have fiorgotten more about economics, than you will ever know.

Bryan,

Read the stuff to Tony above. For about the 7th time, I have explained the 90's economy and the personal computer maybe you will catch on this time.

As far as running a business, if the revenues to my business were growing at a double digit rate, but my expenses were growing faster, I would look to cut my expenses because revenues seem to be taking care of themselves.

When you and Tony actually get to the business world, let me know.

Tony,

You obviously have never taken a business or economics class. There is a thing called a business cycle of products and industries. When a successful product is introduced into the marketplace, it has a very good growth rate, but after a while the product starts to saturate the market and slow down. The personal computer and internet which was in too many peoples' homes in the early 1990's was a std appliance by the year 2000. The growth of the PC has slowed down. Therefore, even though there still are PC's and the internet, it does not have the same impact of GDP growth.

Federal Revenue growth has increased since the Bush Tax cuts of 2003. Revenues went down in 2001 due to the recession, dropped in 2002-03 (take note Bryan those even dollar tax break don't work). From 2004-06, gov't revenues have been grwoing at near or better double digit growth.

I have fiorgotten more about economics, than you will ever know.

Bryan,

Read the stuff to Tony above. For about the 7th time, I have explained the 90's economy and the personal computer maybe you will catch on this time.

As far as running a business, if the revenues to my business were growing at a double digit rate, but my expenses were growing faster, I would look to cut my expenses because revenues seem to be taking care of themselves.

When you and Tony actually get to the business world, let me know.

Terry,

"Read the stuff to Tony above. For about the 7th time, I have explained the 90's economy and the personal computer maybe you will catch on this time."

I have read your spin dozens of times, but of course you have no evidence, data or statistics to support your assertion. You, just like the President, simply assert and assert and assert and expect the rest to play along.

Mr. Bush has had the advantage of an out of control housing market. Why has he not been able to parlay that growth into reduced poverty, higher median incomes, decreased debt, etc.?

IF RAISING TAXES IS AN ECONOMY- KILLER, WHY DID THE TAX INCREASES OF THE 1990'S NOT RESULT IN DISASTER??

When can we expect that debt reduction that you dream of above, since so far all that your policies have done is slash a huge hole in the budget and expand debt by 3 fold??

As for business, I'll let you know when I'm going to be on TV this spring delivering the world's first hurricane-proof, floodproof homes to New Orleans.

Bryan and Tony,

A couple of quotes. Maybe you'll get the impact of the personal computer and internet on 1990's GDP:

"However, until the mid-1990s, the billions of dollars that businesses had poured into information technology seemed to leave little imprint on the overall economy. The investment in new technology arguably had not yet cumulated to be a sizable part of the U.S. capital stock, and computers were still being used largely on a stand-alone basis. The full value of computing power could be realized only after ways had been devised to link computers into large-scale networks.

By 1995 the investment boom had gathered momentum, suggesting that earlier expectations of elevated profitability had not been disappointed. In that year, with inflation falling, domestic operating profit margins started to rise, indicating that increases in unit costs were slowing. These developments signaled that productivity growth was probably beginning to move higher, even though official data, hobbled by statistical problems, failed to provide any confirmation. Now, five years later, there can be little doubt that not only has productivity growth picked up from its rather tepid pace during the preceding quarter-century but that the growth rate has continued to rise, with scant evidence that it is about to crest."

That's from Alan Greenspan April 7, 2000

Next quote (pardon any typos since it was pdf):

"In the 12 months since our last previous digital economy report, confidence has increased among both experts and the American public that the new, prolifieration forms of e-business and the extraordinary dynamism of the industries that produce information-technology products and services are harbingers of a new economic era. For most economists, the key measure of our new condition is the exceptional increase in productivity of the last five years, which has helped drive a welcome combination of feeling inflation and very strong growth. For many people, however, the clearest evidence lies in the extraordinary increase in the electronic connectedness among individuals and business throught the Internet. 300 million people now use the Internet, compared to 3 million in 1994."

US Department of Commerce Digital Economy 200 Report - June , 2000.

Bryan, the 2nd to last sentence is for you and the last sentence is for Tony.

Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Terry-

" Therefore, even though there still are PC's and the internet, it does not have the same impact of GDP growth."

Despite the Clinton taxes that you find so outrageously high? How could that happen? Are you saying that Bush's tax cuts haven't even been able to balance the impact of a slowdown in a sector that comprises at most 2% of the economy? What's the bust in the housing market going to do then?

Where has spending gone up to create the deficits that we now face? Social services? Hardly. Why should they bear the brunt of your spending cuts? Should the cuts come in the high growth spending sectors?

"Now, five years later, there can be little doubt that not only has productivity growth picked up from its rather tepid pace during the preceding quarter-century but that the growth rate has continued to rise, with scant evidence that it is about to crest."

Thanks Terry. Unless you can show that Greenspan was wrong, and that the productivity growth rate DID in fact crest at the end of Clinton's term, you just made my point nicely.

Tony,

If you ever took a business related class, plaese get a refund.

You at least are realizing that spending is the issue and not revenue growth.

As a matter of fact, GDP was negative in the 3rd quarter of 2000. I guess that would be the crest - or the downward turn of the crest. The PC/Internet boom was peaking. The growth of that industry was slowing down and therefore so was the economy; in spite of President Clinton's tax increases.

I think the last two words you need to hear are CHECK MATE.

Umm, Terry, GDP is a completely different thing than the rate of Productivity growth.

"GDP was negative in the 3rd quarter of 2000"

Terry, I should always remember to fact check anything you say.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2001/01january/0101bsf.pdf

GDP rose 2.2% in 3Q 2000.

Try to get your "facts" straight.

Tony,

The productivity/GDP arguement is weak Tony. I expected more. Yes they are different, but when productivity increases so will GDP (all other things being equal).

I'm glad you fact checked Tony, but the next time you do make sure you are looking at the right measure. Visit the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) website. When you look at GDP numbers, you must look at "chained dollars" not "real dollars". You must do your own calculations, but the tables are in Excel so its pretty easy.

There are various articles from the Fed showing the advantage of this measurment, but I like one by Michael Pakko. He writes some pretty good articles if you like this sort of stuff.

I give you credit Tony, you are learning, unlike Bryan who just threw in the towel.

Terry, what I linked to was the Department of Commerce official statement of the GDP. You are just plain wrong.

You know when GDP actually WAS negative? 3rd quarter 2001. You know who was president then?

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

Don't let the facts get in the way of your arguement, Terry.

BTW the productivity arguement was Alan Greenspan's not mine. I'm sure he'll be devastated when he finds out you think it's weak.

NBER is the most respected site for economic data among economists.

GDP is different from productivity, what I said was "Yes they are different, but when productivity increases so will GDP (all other things being equal)." Thus, productivity increases can cause an increase in GDP. Mr. Greenspan will probably be more disappointed when he finds someone is twisting his point.

Yes President Bush was in Office during the recession of 2001. This recession lasted nine months. It started 50 days after he entered the oval office.

You still don't get the point about productivity.

Computers and the internet increased productivity. That is why it had the impact on the economy it did, and still does. It wasn't people buying computers at Best Buy driving the growth, it was that they make business more efficient, AND STILL DO.
That didn't change. That was the whole point of Greenspans quote and my response to it.

I'm sure NBER is well respected, but they do not generate the GDP figures. The Department of Commerce does. Come on Terry, you can admit it. You made a mistake., GDP was NOT negative in Q3 2000.

Tony,

Yes computers still make business more efficent. However the RATE OF GROWTH of the efficiency slows down (growth phase of a business being over. Thus that efficiency is already built into the GDP.

Chained dollars are the proper measure for measuring GDP. 3rd Quarter 2000, negative growth.

You know Terry I've given you multiple links showing your claim on q3 2000 is wrong, yet you never give any proof of your contention. Why is that?

By the way, The BEA numbers uses a chain weighted system to generate the numbers I have shown.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci1-9.pdf

Try again Terry.

Hey, Terry, thanks for pointing me to the NBER. They provide even more proof that you're wrong!

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

"Figure 1 shows the recent movements of quarterly real GDP superimposed on the average movement around troughs over the previous six recessions. GDP reached a peak in the fourth quarter of 2000. This was followed by contraction during the first three quarters of 2001 and growth since then."

Read the charts.

Look at figure one. Read the text. All very clear. Positive growth in Q3 2000.

Now that you have found the table, do the math. Take it out a few decimal places so I know you did it correct. Let me know the result. Hint: the answer starts with a negative sign

Terry, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove your BS lie any further.I've produced sources and quotes from respected authorities, including the one you cited, all saying that you're wrong.

If you want to try and ruther prove you're right, and do the math, fine.

Otherwise the case is closed as far as I'm concerned. You are wrong.

It's a simple divison problem.