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.

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.

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.

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) .

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.