I just wish my stock prices would recover. I took a hit when the tech
stocks crashed.

Perhaps if we dumped NAFTA, the economy would take a big jump in
manufacturing!

Capt. Frank

NOYB wrote:

Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in the
third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent
with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of
an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the
economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double
the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce
Department reported Thursday.


The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of
1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for
third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services
produced within the United States.


"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy in
the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------



I guess we can take "bagging on the economy" off the '04 Democratic election
strategy...

Put in that perspective, the outlook is pretty grim, eh Chuck?

But, all in all, Our charter boat corporation (Florida) is about to
finish up its second fiscal year (october 31), and we made a 3.6 percent
net profit after boss hog, err, ah, bush hog(s), was paid. Not too bad
for 4 old guys.

Capt. Frank

Gould 0738 wrote:

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.
Plus interest, as it gets paid off. (If it ever gets paid off).

So, whatever you think you took home for the family kitty- deduct $716 for
October.
That's the "deferred" cost of Bush's so-called recovery. Just like "deferred
maintenance", we can be sure it will ultimately cost a lot more than if we had
just dealt with it up front. :-(

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.



Where were you guys on the Left when a Democrat controlled Congress was
spending like drunk'n sailors? The only reason Clinton showed a surplus
(well sort of) was the 92 Contract with America and the Republicans forced a
cut in spending. Unfortunately the Repubs are stupid and let Clinton take
all the Credit for the reduction. I understand the deficit spending is
still at about the same 3.2% of GDP that it has been for 30 years.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Nice dodge. Got a Chrysler to go with it?
Do the math and get back to us.

Compare the national debt to the GDP in 1997.

Compare the national dept to the GDP in 2002.

Post your findings he____________

Since your having such a problem figuring this out-

(In millions)
Source-US Federal Government

1997
GDP 8,185,200
Debt 5,369,694

Gross debt to GDP 65.6%

2002
GDP 10,336,600
Debt 6,137,074

Gross debt to GDP 59.3%

Class dismissed.

Careful, Joe. You need to just swat the liberals around a little. If you
hit 'em too hard with your knockout blow right in the beginning, they
disappear and just start a new thread. Now, what fun is that?

When interest rates go back up to service the debt,

Sorry but there is no correlation between the rise, or fall, of the national
debt and interest rates.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/images/graph2.jpg

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Nice dodge. Got a Chrysler to go with it?
Do the math and get back to us.

Compare the national debt to the GDP in 1997.

Compare the national dept to the GDP in 2002.

Post your findings he____________

Since your having such a problem figuring this out-

(In millions)
Source-US Federal Government

1997
GDP 8,185,200
Debt 5,369,694

Gross debt to GDP 65.6%

2002
GDP 10,336,600
Debt 6,137,074

Gross debt to GDP 59.3%

Class dismissed.



Be careful Joe, you don't want to go confusing them with facts. ;-)

Another stat, more important than the overall national debt, is the total
amount of debt held by the public.
It was 46.1% in 1997 and 33% in 2002.

From the CBO

"Businesses and the financial markets pay close attention to (publicly held
debt) it because of its impact on the economy. When the Department of the
Treasury sells securities--in effect, borrows from the public--that activity
absorbs resources that otherwise might be invested in the private sector"

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3948&sequence=0

Since your having such a problem figuring this out-

(In millions)
Source-US Federal Government

1997
GDP 8,185,200
Debt 5,369,694

Gross debt to GDP 65.6%

2002
GDP 10,336,600
Debt 6,137,074

Gross debt to GDP 59.3%

Class dismissed.

Try using the actual GDP figure for 2002.
Not something you got hell knows where to make your example work


9485.6


Nice try though. You had a couple of right wingers hootin' and hollerin' and
rootin you on. Guess they'll believe anything they see in print that verifies a
preconception.


Billions of chained (1996) dollars
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
2002 2002:Q3 2002:Q4 2003:Q1 2003:Q2
2003:Q3
Gross domestic product (GDP)... 9439.9 9485.6 9518.2 9552.0 9629.4 9797.2


Cite:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

Be careful Joe, you don't want to go confusing them with facts. ;-)

You've been had. The GDP number he used for 2002 was incorrect.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

Careful, Joe. You need to just swat the liberals around a little. If you
hit 'em too hard with your knockout blow right in the beginning, they
disappear and just start a new thread. Now, what fun is that?

The knockout blow is a sucker punch. And he seems to have suckered you big
time.
If you'd like to see what the *real* GDP was in 2002, follow this link:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm