He's even gone so far as to purposely manipulate data to prove his
case.

Bologna.

Did you click on the sites I provided?
What did you see that was different from what I said was there? Since the sites
have the same data that I used in my calculation, how do you justify a charge
that I manipulated the data?

Your precious tax cut is reflected in the rapidly escalating pace at which the
National Debt is growing. Got a family of 5? Your $115k is probably just a few
weeks' work for you and no big deal.....but for most folks their pro-rata
portion of the national debt likely rivals the equity in their home.

I think there might be a good reason for the BEA to use adjusted numbers for
GDP. It backs out inflation. IOW, if inflation takes everything up 5% in a year
is that real growth, or just the same old actual amount expressed in a figure
that's 5% higher?

When the Bush Administration converts the treasury data to "real" numbers on
the White House web site, it is trying to take whatever credit it can get for
the effects of inflation creating a larger number.

Debt, on the other hand, remains a current
total number. "Inflation" isn't a reason to go deeper in debt, just as it isn't
a substitute for genuine domestic production. Inflation doesn't "produce"
anything, last time I looked.

I don't need to manipulate a darn thing to illustrate that the R congress and
the R president are spending us into the dumper.
You guys are supposed to be fiscally conservative. What a joke that is.

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.

Don't be so deliberately dense.
The BEA site that calculates the GDP does so in chained dollars. That's how
it's expressed. Consistently. The White House site adds "real" dollars to try
to take credit for inflation.

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



Debt is not production. It is a real, accumulated total. The treasury does not
report the debt in adjusted numbers.

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?

Already handled. The treasury does not index the debt. It does index the GDP.
Your party's in charge. If you don't like it, fix it.

But you're comparing indexed numbers to non-indexed numbers! The treasury
publishes *both* current dollars for GDP, and chained dollars. Why don't
you use "current" dollars for GDP since you're comparing it to "current"
dollars for debt? That'd be more fair...and you'd get the results that Joe
published. Of course, you wouldn't like the results, now, would you? ;-)



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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?

Already handled. The treasury does not index the debt. It does index the
GDP.
Your party's in charge. If you don't like it, fix it.

But you're comparing indexed numbers to non-indexed numbers! The treasury
publishes *both* current dollars for GDP, and chained dollars.

On the site I found and used for the calculation, there are no non-indexed
numbers for the GDP. I am not saying they don't exist somewhere, in fact you
would have to start with a non-indexed number and apply a factor to create an
indexed number in the first place. However, if the BEA is reporting the GDP
only in indexed numbers there must be some logical justification for that. I
believe it's to try to
develop a valid year-to-year comparison of actual wealth produced- not just the
effect of inflation.

With a non-indexed number, actual production could go *down* 5 percent, but if
inflation ran 7 percent the same year, the non-indexed number would encourage
people to believe that the economy grew by 2%. No, the economy shrank by 5% (in
this hypothetical example) and prices increased by 7.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

On the site I found and used for the calculation, there are no non-indexed
numbers for the GDP.

Sorry Chuck, but they do have all of the historical (1929-2003) non-indexed
GDP data on their site.

http://tinyurl.com/t3ww

perhaps we should try buy products made in the US
"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...

Sorry Chuck, but they do have all of the historical (1929-2003) non-indexed
GDP data on their site.

http://tinyurl.com/t3ww


Click on the link I provided. None of this information is on the page I
referenced.

Did Chuck all of a sudden become impartial? No and no.
He just doesn't seem to like America.



Actually, I love America. I hate to see the country damaged by selfish people
with a greedy agenda.

I love America.

I dislike Bush.

I distrust the PNAC gang, based on their *own* admitted and published agenda.

I have no time at all for ignorant, flaming, assholes. If you happen to run
into one, would you pass that along for me? Thanks.