This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by the
Bush Administration.

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?

Strange.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Using you number or mine- how many think the economy is robust and healthy?

(predicting the sound of silence here) .

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges. If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from 2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?

"Joe" wrote in message
...

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied
by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US
Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges. If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would
use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from 2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?




Who friggin cares??????????

You will not change a damn thing by arguing about who's numbers are right or
wrong or by what means you came about your numbers.

You will not change Chuck's mind...he will not change yours. Accept that
and move on.

How convenient, Gould. You pick the numbers that best suit your
argument...but fail to index the debt to 1996 also.

Apples to apples...remember, Chuck?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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

Then you better adjust the debt numbers, also, when you're indexing the GDP
to 1996.

Using "chained (1996) dollars" for GDP means you have to use "chained (1996)
dollars for the debt, too. That's pretty dishonest of you Chuck.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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

You used "actual" numbers for debt and "indexed" or "adjusted" numbers for
GDP. That's sneaky at best...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by
the
Bush Administration.

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?

Strange.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Using you number or mine- how many think the economy is robust and
healthy?

(predicting the sound of silence here) .

It's not a matter of changing Chuck's mind. His mind is clamped shut. The
economy is improving and it kills Chuck to admit that the tax cut is the
reason. He's even gone so far as to purposely manipulate data to prove his
case.




"Jim--" wrote in message
news

"Joe" wrote in message
...

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers
supplied
by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US
Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention
them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges.
If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would
use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from
2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round
in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP
when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?




Who friggin cares??????????

You will not change a damn thing by arguing about who's numbers are right
or
wrong or by what means you came about your numbers.

You will not change Chuck's mind...he will not change yours. Accept that
and move on.

Frank,
The Nasdaq is up over 70% from 12 months ago...and the Dow is up 30%.
That's great if you got in the market in October 2002. Of course, when a
stock falls 50%, then it has to go up 100% just to be even.


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
link.net...
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...

You used "actual" numbers for debt and "indexed" or "adjusted" numbers for
GDP. That's sneaky at best...


The treasury supplies indexed numbers for GDP and current dollar values for
debt.
Give them a call if you think that's "sneaky". I think the gov can be pretty
sneaky at times, too.