As you're now aware, each of the sources I posted debunked your point. The BEA, FRED, and all the news sites all agreed that 2017 real GDP growth was 2.3%. You just went out and did a mathematically invalid operation (doing an arithmetic average of four quarters of annualized growth to give you the annual growth figure), and came up with a nonsense answer.

No, they're telling the truth: the GDP growth rate in 2017 was 2.3%. I even gave you the exact cell to find the answer in, in the BEA spreadsheet. Your home-brew calculation is the problem here, not the BEA's data.

No, obviously, you can't. That's not how math works. Here, some simple math for you, to show your error. Say GDP grows by 10% first quarter, then shrinks 10% in the second quarter, grows 10% in the third quarter, then shrinks by 10% in the fourth quarter. How much has it changed?

If you never made it past about 4th grade math, you might say it hasn't changed at all, since the arithmetic average of +10%, -10%, +10%, -10% is 0. But now do the actual math and see if that's where it comes out. Say you start at 100.

Q0 100

Q1 100+(10%*100)=110

Q2 110-(10%*110)=99

Q3 99+(10%*99)= 108.9

Q4 108.9-(10%*108.9)= 98.01

See, you didn't get 0 change. You got a decrease of 1.99%.

The same basic thing plays out with alternating plus and minus annualized 10% change (which is about 2.4114% quarterly change)

Q0 100

Q1 100+(2.4114%*100)=102.4114

Q2 102.4114-(2.4114%*102.4114)=99.9418515

Q3 99.9418515+(2.4114%*99.9418515)= 102.3518493

Q4 102.3518493-(2.4114%*102.3518493)= 99.88373681

So, again, rather than the net-zero change you'd get if math worked the way you'd expected, you instead find a net decrease. You need a geometric average, not an arithmetic average.

Geometric Average vs. Arithmetic Average: Which is Correct For Investment Returns? - Arbor Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (AAAMP) Value Blog
I shared a Krugman column from the Bush era. If you now want to retreat and redefine your claim only to include things from the "mid GWB," fine, but you still haven't produced an example of his supposed screaming on the topic, whereas I did provide a Bush-era example of him downplaying the risk of deficits when Bush was president. As a general matter, Krugman believes in running deficits in hard economic times, and eliminating them in good economic times. The political party of the president doesn't enter into it, as you now realize (since you've seen that column from the Bush era arguing against the deficit scolds).

What makes you think that? Or were you trying to pretend I'd said that? If so, why not just stick to what I've actually said, rather than devising straw men and attributing them to me?