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.

"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

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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there are.