Apology

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I can't believe you tell someone in another thread that information form blogs doesn't count. Then you actually have the nerve to pull a graph from a blog and present it as the centerpiece of your argument.

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Opinion vs. Facts

A blog post is an opinion piece. A graph is a visual collection of data. Anyone can scrape the Federal Reserve website for the information on that graph.

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Fact. The graph came from a blog. By your logic, any information in a blog can be fact, since it may come from another more reputable website. There can certainly be a persons own opinion mixed in, but they may base their opinion on facts, right? You can't have it both ways.

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.

[scottw]

hey ass clown....sorry, I just find that amusing when you say it...democrats controlled congress during Reagan and Bush the elder, they controlled the spending, Republicans controlled the congress for most of the Clintons years, and the spending...

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You're conflating previous comments made about opinion pieces. The nice thing about numbers is that 2+2 always equals 4. As I stated above, the exact information in that graph can be scraped from the Fed's website.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. However, I'm also not going to dig through the Fed website to put an excel sheet together to demonstrate that Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all increased the national debt (quite significantly in the case of Bush 2) and that Clinton had a significant surplus.

Can an opinion be bases on facts and be true?

You must be really busy to be able to go on blogs, but not check out the govt. site. I just went on there and oddly enough, there was much economic growth during Bush's terms. Clinton left office with many of the economic indicators in a downward pattern, and they actually rebounded while Bush was in office. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first person to say that the economy is mostly cyclical. But, you have to look at where it is and where it's heading when each President takes and leaves office. Oh and also keep in mind the words of many of your fellow libs and conservatives. Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Deficits can be a good thing for the economy.

Brief deficits can be a good thing. What the Dems are doing right now is not. Spending during a down economy is only good if it is put towards quick growth and recovery areas. A historical example of the contrary would be Reagan's increased Cold War-era spending during a down economy. The deficits during these times had no long-term financial benefits (regardless of the debated necessity for the spending).