Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
I am making two assertions:
1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.
|
I'm sorry if it was completely outrageous of me to draw a direct correlation between growth of debt, and a degrees of fiscal responsibility. Especially since you don't seem to care about the other economic indicators presented, either. But apparently my method of providing facts, offends yours right to just believe what you want to believe....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.
|
Okay, at this point I should know better, but I will bite. The assertion that the rise of the internet just suddenly made more money appear, borders on the absurd. Yes, some people made a lot of money. In fact, if you look at our government's published figures, the budget surpluses had more to do with a slowdown in proportionate spending increases, rather than a disproportionate increase in revenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president.
|
Trickle down theory? Make the rich richer to benefit everyone?
Iran Contra? Have the CIA sell cocaine on American soil, to fund militant extremists?
The worst income/expenditure ratio of any President?
Reagan was a tool. The worst kind, really.