"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.

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.