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.

"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?

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

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:

As stated, your numbers are not actual dollars, they are a guesstimate of
the buying power as compared to another year (1996).
If you MUST use the CPI, apply it to debt value also.

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

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.

"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. ;-)

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