Percentage of debt to GDP.

Bow-gus!

In billions of dollars:
1997 GDP: 8,318.4
2002 GDP: 10446.2

Compare that to the national debt for the same years. It's close, so use a
calculator.

While the difference is slight, the current debt is *higher than*, not *less
than* the debt to GDP ratio in 1997.

GDP is a deceptive figure anyway, as it includes the appreciation of primary
residence real estate as some sort of actual wealth or economic production.
Planning to sell your house and live in a tent any time soon?
Subtract the appreciation of residential real estate, and watch the comparsion
skew right off the chart. We are way the hell out of whack from where we were
in the 90's.

When interest rates go back up to service the debt, those house prices will
take a mighty tumble. People will spend as much for a house as the monthly
payments allow. When a lot more of that payment is going for interest, guess
what has to give?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB:

I thought you guys on the right were business savvy.

Yeah, once you screw something up *tremendously*, it's easier to post some
pretty impressive percentage numbers as the rebound begins.

So you admit that a rebound has begun?

Nevertheless, your theory is discredited by the fact that GDP currently
stands at a figure that is almost 11% higher than when Bush took office.
Anyway you spin it, that represents real growth.



Example: Your practice is capable of handling 20 patients per day. You
begin
spouting off about your politics while your victims (er, I mean patients)
are
strapped into the chair with a mouth full of crap and unable to respond.
Your
patient load drops from 20 per day to 5. You finally realize that
dentistry and
politics don't mix, and shut the heck up. Your patient load goes from 5
patients per day to 8. Wo ho! Brilliant management! You just posted a 60%
increase. :-)


Good try, Gould...but we've had consistent *growth* in GDP...not a decline.



I once took over a sales situation where I achieved a 120% increase in
less
than six months. But it wasn't any big deal, all I really did was get
production up to about where it should have been all along. That
percentage
increase sure looked good on the resume for a while, though.

I guess we can all be thankful that one of our longer and deeper
recessions may
be coming to an end in many places throughout the country. The West Coast
is
seeing no part of it.

That's because your state governments are run by Democrats...who have
*raised* your state taxes.


You know it *must* have been the tax cuts. This is the
very first time that the economy *ever* recovered from a recession, right?

Last time that the GDP jumped that much was in 1984...following the Reagan
tax cut.

Did you see Sen. Corzine's (D) comments about the tax cut and the economy?
He broke ranks with his fellow Dems and attributed a large part of the
rebound to the tax cut.

"Joe" wrote in message
news

It's all relative Neo-boy.

You're right, it is all relative.
Relatively speaking our debt is lower now than it was throughout the 90's.

Hehehe.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You're right, it is all relative.
Relatively speaking our debt is lower now than it was throughout the
90's.

Relatively speaking?

Maybe if you're a relative of a right wing radio spin doctor.

Our current debt is about 1 1/2 times what it averaged in the 90's.

But our current debt as a percentage of GDP is almost exactly what it
averaged in Clinton's first term. With this shockingly high spike in GDP,
the ratio will drop sharply, too.


Is somebody
trying to state that the size of our (recessed) economy is more than 150%
of
what it was in the 90's and therefore the debt is
still in proportion? That's easy to say, but I think it would be
impossible to
come up with any evidence to support such a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of logic.

Look at the numbers Gould:
http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The Bush Prosperity:

Divide the 43 Billion dollar increase in the national debt by 300 million.
(approximate pop)

The answer is $143.33

Multiply that amount by the number of people in your family. Rather than
use a
liberal-friendly example of a family of 11 (grin), let's use a realistic
example of a family of 5.

5 x 143.33 = $716

If you are part of a 5-person family, your family's portion of the
national
debt increased $716 in the last 30 days.

Good. But since the note never really comes "due", the more ancestors I
leave, the easier it will be for them to pay it off. ;-)

Good. But since the note never really comes "due", the more ancestors I
leave, the easier it will be for them to pay it off. ;-)

The note's due now. What is the effect on the value of the dollar when so many
of them are committed to the future?

(Some of)You guys on the right have the same attitude toward the national debt
as you do the environment! "Let my kids and grandkids deal with it!" Ya otta
be proud.

Look at the numbers Gould:
http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf



Why in the world would a Bush fan post that?! Especially to compare the
economic trends of the 90's with the economic trends so far in Bush's stint?

I rest my case!

Nevertheless, your theory is discredited by the fact that GDP currently
stands at a figure that is almost 11% higher than when Bush took office.

Maybe your primary residence is more clever than mine, or anybody else that I
know. Most of our houses haven't "produced" a darn thing (as in "gross domestic
product") yet the spike in selling prices (not to be confused with values)
inspired by the temporarily low interest rates is reflected in the GDP numbers.

Without the artificial "product" of escalating real estate prices (further
splitting the haves and the have-nots in this country) the GDP number would
reflect actual economic "growth" and would most likely be a negative number.

Hehehe.

He, he, he is talking through his hat!

You might do some math before blindly agreeing with statements that merely
sound good.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Look at the numbers Gould:
http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf



Why in the world would a Bush fan post that?! Especially to compare the
economic trends of the 90's with the economic trends so far in Bush's
stint?

I rest my case!

This chart shows year to year deficits, not the total national debt as a
percentage of GDP.
The total debt GDP ratio is a better indicator than year to year
surplus/deficit numbers.