Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (12601)	4/6/2004 8:41:09 AM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Your number is wrong; the annualized GDP for the year 2000 it is 3.7. bea.doc.gov (Table 1.1.1 - Annual) The annualized GDP for 2000 hides what it was when Clinton left office: 3rd qtr 2000: -.5%, 4th qtr 2000: 2.1 %. Nice try. Anything under 3.0 is considered to be weak growth. bea.doc.gov (Table 1.1.1 - Quarterly) GWB has turned it around. The annualized GDP for 2003 is 3.1; the last 2 quarters are 8.2 and 4.1 respectively. As far as unemployment goes, Clinton had a higher average, a higher peak, and at this point in his term (40 months), the Clinton rate was nearly identical (a mere 1/10 of a percent lower). The unemployment rate under Clinton did not go under 5% until may of 1997. A 1/10 of one percent uptick does not make a trend. The overall unemployment rate trend is currently downward. From the peak of June 2003 : 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 The market rallied for 2 days on the jobs news. Apparently the market does not agree with your pessimistic spin. FTR, I said: Clinton handed Bush a collapsing stock market, an economy sliding into recession (Some say it was already in recession) and it has been turned around. The economic numbers prove it.