" 

 For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 

  
 == Inconsistent use of % GDP to refer to ""records"" == 

 From the Article: 

 Statement 1: "" had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, to the lowest level since 1959."" 

 Statement 2: ""The annual deficit reached record levels of $374 billion in 2003 and $413 billion in 2004"" 

 This is an obvious (at least to me as an accounting guy) POV violation.  Nominal numbers rarely tell the whole story in an economy we expect to grow over time.  Stating that annual deficits are records in nominal terms is misleading especially after referring to federal revenue as lowest since 1959 as a percent of GDP.  The author uses % GDP when it makes the President look bad and quickly abandons it when it would show non-record deficits as a percent of GDP.   

 I won't edit it, but I think a consensus can be reached on consistent use of nominal or percentage numbers when referring to the economy.  This should be at least one sticking point we can all (at least the level-headed among us) agree on. 

 Consistent use of statistical terms absolves you of charges of manipulating numbers. 

 Oops, Forgot to Sign,  5-31-05 

 In fact, I just read the reference to USAToday's pre-election article and it mentions this fact at the very end of it's article. 

 ""The administration and congressional Republicans say the most important measure of the deficit is that the 2004 shortfall was an estimated 3.6% the size of the economy. That is well below the worst-ever 6% figure set in 1983 under President Reagan.""   

 (Strictly speaking it is the worst-ever Post-WWII.) 

 ""Many economists agree that such a comparison is more significant because it shows how affordable the deficit is for the nation. But many of them are uncomfortable with shortfalls of that size because deficits are expected to worsen later this decade when the huge baby boom generation begins drawing on Social Security and Medicare. "" 

 I'd like more comment on this before someone makes the change as it will get reverted by opponents anyways. 

  19:37 5-31-05 

 :I have no objection to including the information, but the term ""nominal"" is uninformative and possibly confusing because of its colloquial use to mean ""small"".  I think what you mean is to make clear that the Bush deficits are records when measured in current dollars, so that's what I've changed it to.  (I don't know how the Bush deficits compare with Reagan's in constant dollars, but it would be interesting to know.)  Also in that section, I've removed the unattributed POV that Bush's tax cuts helped curb the recession.   

 I think we are running at 3.6% whereas Reagan was in the neighborhood of 6% don't quote me.  Nominal just means the actual dollars as opposed to referencing a value in relation to something else ie GDP.  Nominal is an accounting term and is used correctly, if you use it to mean small that is incorrect, colloquially or not. 

 

 :I wasn't referring to percentage of GDP, but to the actual size of the deficit, adjusted for inflation.  Bush's deficits are bigger in current dollars but maybe not in constant dollars.  As to ""nominal"", it may have a technical meaning in accounting and have a different, though still correct, meaning in other contexts.  Merriam-Webster online mentions ""trifling"" and ""insignificant"" as possible synonyms.  Anyway, whether that meaning is correct or not, we should try to avoid a term that many people will read that way.   

 :: Dsquared is correct, but I understand the confusion.  Nominal is one of those words that means what it sounds like: ""In name.""  If you say ""Catholics have a nominal obligation to attend mass weekly"" you may mean the obligation isn't actually significant, but you aren't saying the obligation is small (it's a big obligation that whose violation is condoned though not approved by the Church).  Hence, ""nominal GDP"" is the GDP by name (number of dollars).