• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth?

Simon W. Moon said:
According to the BEA, 2.8% has already been adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

Then so were the Bush numbers as they came from the same chart.

2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You really have an obsession with me and a strong desire to prove me wrong as you always seem to focus on the specific post and not the one I was responding to. If you are going to adjust for inflation then do so across the board on revenue and all expenses not just the specific numbers that you seem to like. Let's adjust for inflation the 2.8% economic growth of Obama's last year. Does anyone really care whether or not the 14.6 trillion dollar GDP in 2010 is adjusted for inflation at some time in the future? I really don't care what the inflation rate was because If you notice the GDP numbers during the Bush years you will notice quite during the years of 2003-2007. Was inflation that much higher during that period of time than it was in 2001-2002 or 2007-2008?
Click to expand...

The 2.8 is adjusted. That is why it is in the adjusted table. Not sure what part of that was confusing. If you don't care about what inflation was, you have no room to talk about GDP, since GDP growing at below inflation is, to use the technical term, bad. You can't just ignore away important facts just because they make your case weaker. You don't get to pick and choose what statistics are relevant or key.
 
Conservative said:
Then so were the Bush numbers as they came from the same chart.

2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%
Click to expand...

Funny how you have no link for those numbers, but the numbers supplied earlier had one. I wonder which are more believable...
 
Redress said:
The 2.8 is adjusted. That is why it is in the adjusted table. Not sure what part of that was confusing. If you don't care about what inflation was, you have no room to talk about GDP, since GDP growing at below inflation is, to use the technical term, bad. You can't just ignore away important facts just because they make your case weaker. You don't get to pick and choose what statistics are relevant or key.
Click to expand...

I got the numbers I posted from the same chart, if the 2.8% was adjusted so were the Bush numbers.
 
Conservative said:
How many times do I have to post the link?
Click to expand...

I just checked each and every one of your 24 posts in this thread, and you in no of them linked to the chart you got those numbers from. So linking to the chart once would do it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking somehow I had missed it, but nope, no link.
 
Redress said:
I just checked each and every one of your 24 posts in this thread, and you in no of them linked to the chart you got those numbers from. So linking to the chart once would do it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking somehow I had missed it, but nope, no link.
Click to expand...

Since you have followed me all over the forum obviously you ignored the links I have provided many times. I didn't say I had posted it on this board but did as you can see from above. It was an addition but here it is again. If you are going to continue this obsession with me then pay closer attention to all my posts and the links I post.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
Redress said:
Now that you actually supplied it, it's the wrong one. That is gross unadjusted.
Click to expand...

If it is gross unadjusted then the 2.8% for Obama is wrong as well. Those are the actual dollars.
 
Conservative said:
If it is gross unadjusted then the 2.8% for Obama is wrong as well. Those are the actual dollars.
Click to expand...

There are no percentages in the link you finally supplied, it is in dollar amounts, not adjusted for anything. It is entirely and completely the wrong chart. Since you had linked to the right chart so many times in this thread, you should have no problem finding it now.
 
Redress said:
There are no percentages in the link you finally supplied, it is in dollar amounts, not adjusted for anything. It is entirely and completely the wrong chart. Since you had linked to the right chart so many times in this thread, you should have no problem finding it now.
Click to expand...

Everything posted contrary to your claims is wrong. Do the math? The chart speaks for itself. You don't like it, take it up with the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
 
Conservative said:
Everything posted contrary to your claims is wrong. Do the math? The chart speaks for itself. You don't like it, take it up with the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Click to expand...

Kinda looks like you have the ole goal post on caster bearings … again today conservative.:2wave:
 
donc said:
Kinda looks like you have the ole goal post on caster bearings … again today conservative.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Then you do the math and prove me wrong. Take any year, subtract the previous year and divide that by that previous year to get percentage change. Where am I wrong?

(GDP 2006- GDP 2005) divided by GDP 2005=???
 
Conservative said:
Then you do the math and prove me wrong. Take any year, subtract the previous year and divide that by that previous year to get percentage change. Where am I wrong?

(GDP 2006- GDP 2005) divided by GDP 2005=???
Click to expand...

Post #182
Conservative

Not sure where someone comes up with Bush's annual growth at 2.39% because here are the actual numbers from BEA.gov. There is so much misinformation provided by liberals here that it is quite disturbing.

GDP and Percentage change from previous year

2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%

Post #191

Simon w.Moon


It does look quite a bit different when the BEA adjusts for inflation.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Code:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
4.1 1.1 1.8 2.5 3.6 3.1 2.7 1.9 0 -2.6



Conservative

post# 193

If you adjust for inflation you have to do so with every year and every category of both expense and revenue. It is all relative including right now during the Obama years


HELLO GOALPOST....Your in the wrong spot,let me help.:mrgreen:
 
deleted and embarrassed.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
Post #182
Conservative

Not sure where someone comes up with Bush's annual growth at 2.39% because here are the actual numbers from BEA.gov. There is so much misinformation provided by liberals here that it is quite disturbing.

GDP and Percentage change from previous year

2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%

Post #191

Simon w.Moon


It does look quite a bit different when the BEA adjusts for inflation.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Code:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
4.1 1.1 1.8 2.5 3.6 3.1 2.7 1.9 0 -2.6



Conservative

post# 193

If you adjust for inflation you have to do so with every year and every category of both expense and revenue. It is all relative including right now during the Obama years


HELLO GOALPOST....Your in the wrong spot,let me help.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I always look forward to somoene educating me on math. Go for it and prove me wrong. Interesting that the 2.8% GDP growth shows up for Obama in the numbers and that coincides with the reported number by the media.
 
Conservative said:
Then you do the math and prove me wrong. Take any year, subtract the previous year and divide that by that previous year to get percentage change. Where am I wrong?

(GDP 2006- GDP 2005) divided by GDP 2005=???
Click to expand...

Your numbers are using nominal dollars not constant dollars. Nominal dollars are unadjusted for inflation (or deflation)

GDP% change values when presented from government statisitics are almost always adjusted for inflation
 
Conservative said:
Then so were the Bush numbers as they came from the same chart.

2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%
2009 14256.30 -1.28%
2010 14657.8 2.82%
Click to expand...
Here's the chart where I got the 2.8%

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Titled:
Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
Code: 
2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
1.1	1.8	2.5	3.6	3.1	2.7	1.9	0	-2.6	2.8
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Your numbers are using nominal dollars not constant dollars. Nominal dollars are unadjusted for inflation (or deflation)

GDP% change values when presented from government statisitics are almost always adjusted for inflation
Click to expand...

My numbers are using the same numbers that the media reported when it stated that Obama's economic growth was 2.8%. My numbers match that report.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Here's the chart where I got the 2.8%

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Titled:
Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
Code: 
2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
1.1	1.8	2.5	3.6	3.1	2.7	1.9	0	-2.6	2.8
Click to expand...

Good, I used real dollars captured by BEA and calculated the actual percentage change. I prefer actual dollars because that is what generates revenue, not percentage change.
 
Conservative said:
Good, I used real dollars captured by BEA and calculated the actual percentage change. I prefer actual dollars because that is what generates revenue, not percentage change.
Click to expand...

And yet your numbers do not match the above numbers

I know why and understand why do you?

Your numbers are not being adjusted for inflation, the ones by Simon W. Moon are. The numbers presented by Simon W. Moon reflect real economic growth rather then "growth through inflation"

Use your methodology and review the 1970s. You will see how good the Carter years were
 
Conservative said:
My numbers are using the same numbers that the media reported when it stated that Obama's economic growth was 2.8%. My numbers match that report.
Click to expand...


Nah, not going to correct your math. Enjoy watching you do your morning calisthenics of shoving the goalpost around though.:thumbs:
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And yet your numbers do not match the above numbers

I know why and understand why do you?

Your numbers are not being adjusted for inflation, the ones by Simon W. Moon are. The numbers presented by Simon W. Moon reflect real economic growth rather then "growth through inflation"

Use your methodology and review the 1970s. You will see how good the Carter years were
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that in a few years the 2010 GDP percentage change will be reduced as applied to that year's dollars? Got it and why I don't care about percentage change in any comparison.

What will that 2.8% rate be revised to in 2013 dollars?
 
donc said:
Nah, not going to correct your math. Enjoy watching you do your morning calisthenics of shoving the goalpost around though.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Translation: I cannot refute the math therefore I will continue to troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom