|
Phydeaux -> RE: Obama Care (3/18/2014 8:47:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evesgrden
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: evesgrden
dimocrat? my my
How I shall ever sleep again after such a thought provoking rebuttal?
Fortunately I like to rely on hard data. It speaks for itself.
[image]local://upfiles/1433741/F979D0D833C349D98A5E2C745E925F06.jpg[/image]
Still Cherry picking:
Publishing graphs of spending is rather pointless. We spend money on actions and policies.
The real question is, generally, are we happy with the results of the how money was spent.
Very high percentages of Americans would say they were happy with the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush I.
Under Reagan, the Soviet Union disitengrated; the berlin wall was brought down. We saw the beginnings of nascent Europe.
Bush saw the technological inovation of the internet.
Clinton had welfare reform.
Most people are dissatisfied with how our money was spent under carter, Bush II, and Obama.
So making pretty pictures and pretending that those pictures are ANYTHING other than points designed to score political points is a lie.
What is not true? Specifically. With citations. What lie did I tell?
Good lord you're acting as if there is some intent to deceive and to score political points as you say. Yet I haven't called Republicans disparaging names (to score points) as you have with "dimocrats" repeatedly. I haven't made gross generalizations without evidence such as "dimocrats" wanting to expand government services. And instead of saying "that's a lie", I simply offered numbers in graphic form to suggest that your allegation is without substance. I didn't do it to put Republicans down. There are in fact many occasions where I have agreed with Republican policies. There are certainly many occasions where I've taken issue with the execution of liberal policies. But nevertheless I am philosophically a liberal even when I am disappointed with the way things are implemented.
but I digress
If you like, I could give you good reason for a lot of that spending on the part of the Republicans. But it is simply beyond me how you can say it's a lie. It's just data, it ain't personal. No need to get huffy and make wild accusations. It's not a reflection of which side is right or wrong, better or worse. Just numbers.
However one needs to have a sense of objecivity and be able to make well-reasoned decisions in order to understand that.
You've never heard the question, lies, damn lies and statistics?
Of course there's an attempt to deceive. If you are honestly saying that you don't understand the intent - thats fine..
Let me give you the first example that comes to mind. Hundreds of papers, Michael Mann, the IPCC have confirmed that global warming is not now occurring - and they don't know why.
DomKen's flat response to that is the 9 of the 12 hottest years on the planet have been within the last 20 years.
Presume that his statement is true for a moment (it isn't). The fact that hot years have happened, and that fact that they may or may not continue to happen is irrelevent to global warming, which is the rate of INCREASE in temperatures.
Your article, using cherry picked time frames, cherry picked data points (GDP, inflation, whatever) attempts to make the assertion that the country does better under democrat administrations than republican ones.
I'm sure that I could pick apart the statistical shenanigans had I time or inclination. But its irrelevant. Your data doesn't support your assertion.
Let me give you another example. '73 oil embargo. Energy prices triple. Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as weak and ineffectual.
Did the performance of the United States reflect the policies of the democrats, or were they a mixture of those policies and external events?
Is their a lag between an administration and the downstream effect of those policies?
For example in 1993 Clinton & party sign the community redevelopment act requiring banks make sub-prime loans. Over the next 16 years it sparks a huge run up in home prices and is a significant cause of the 2009 housing bubble - which erased a trillion dollars of private wealth, and caused (back of envelope) 2 trillion dollars in government debt.
None of which is reflected in your stastics.
Your statistics attempt to say that these numbers are proof that the country does better under democrats than republicans, when in fact there is not even the tiniest attempt to attribute the performance of the country to policies.
There are examinations that do attempt to look at these kinds of questions. For example, if you compare the performance of the country after this recession with the performance of the country after all previous recessions you get some idea how this president is performing.
But even then the causality between the president's policies and the recovery is very very low.
Lies. Damn lies. Statistics.
|
|
|
|
