The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.~T.H. HuxleyOverheard at Lem's:
Rhythm and Balls said...
Democrats almost consistently bring debt down. Republicans ever since Reagan almost consistently raise it.
December 18, 2015 at 8:53 PMAs proof, the author linked the following chart:
So far, so good. But I wondered why the Obama years were so truncated and so I went looking for more recent data:
I will leave it to you geniuses to explain away the "hockey stick."
____________________
[Added, 6 PM PST, December 19, 2015]:
And yet, she will become POTUS because Americans know that her lies are not as dangerous as the lies that Republicans can't stop telling themselves. See Chickie's new, selective disregard for facts in a later post comparing 1990 to 1941 if you want to see evidence of that.
Apparently, the author misunderstood what I did with the charts. I used the second chart to show the astonishing growth in debt under the Obama Administration. I knew that it had spiked, and had approached FDR levels (and yet, we never saw FDR-like performance, did we?).
It seemed rather obvious to me that the data presented in the second chart augments the data in the first one; it doesn't supplant the first one. Plotted together, the deficits run by FDR and by Obama would look like sharp spikes at both ends of a hypothetical chart spanning the years 1932 to 2015.* Such a chart would still undermined the author's hypothesis that "Democrats almost consistently bring debt down. Republicans ever since Reagan almost consistently raise it."
Quarrel Est Demonstandum
28 comments:
*In the context of morality, Nietzsche commented that the German words for "debt" and "guilt" were the same: link
Obama did say he was going to transform the country.
Where did all that largesse go to, anyway?
Did something happen between 2006 and 2007? I wonder what it might have been...
And that drop in the 90s was all projection in the out years.
It's just stupid to think that: 1) a President has the overwhelming effect on debt, and 2) that it would start and end with their terms,as if they control some huge faucet. An old, dumb argument regardless of who it seems to benefit. One thing is certain, whoever we have been electing has been spending too much, and getting too little for it.
Leland said...
Did something happen between 2006 and 2007? I wonder what it might have been...
It couldn't have ben the bailouts because Obama took credit for those.
bagoh20 said...
It's just stupid to think that: 1) a President has the overwhelming effect on debt, and 2) that it would start and end with their terms,as if they control some huge faucet.
Given that the Legislative branches are often controlled by the opposite party that's in the WH, the "credit" for budget austerity under Dems should go to Republicans. If the debt starts to fall under Obama, we can credit the Republican-controlled Houses...or not.
Why defend Republicans from rotten smelly stinking skunk silly little girl mal informed typically Democrat partisan smears? *I just clicked off the miserable uckfay acefay Obama for the 15th time today. Goodness, I do wish people would stop putting him up.* They so richly deserve to die, by lies, partial truths, full truths whatever. Just die already.
Whigs / Republicans same thing
Democrats / Historic racists same thing.
And now Republicans have come to the point that the Whigs reached long ago, the exact same point. They cannot do anything because they've been subsumed into the crazy.
When 20 T in debt is acceptable under any circumstances then you've reached the point where talking to each other and discussing matters, pointing out differences between parties, doesn't do any good at all. It's all action from hereon.
So, come now, let's be mates and together put an end to this outrage against our national interests. Over time, let's put out the Republicans and replace them with better people, they're out there, who will work hard to slam the brakes on the crazy and end this siphoning of national resources and build a freer better finer future for our children not born in collective debt so severe they can never pay it because of us, and so beholden to malevolent self-interested divisive government unresponsive to its people from whom they draw power exactly as proper slaves to a Southern plantation. *shoots president in the head and leaps down to stage, "Sic semper tyrannis" limps off*
I experienced a major breakthrough by accident today. Wanna hear what happened? Okay, goes like this...
T backed stook was positioned next to a side table with space between them and that gave me the idea to use them as balance for squats. It's a thing. Random squats to see how far down I can go.
Not very far.
So tonight I squatted all the way down, that would be impossible to lift back up without help from arms, but I tried really hard and forced my feet and ankles into the action, as if stepping on tiptoes without actually lifting, instead transfer all the lower leverage action onto the legs instead.
It's hard to explain, but for the first time in like fifteen years I felt the muscles activate on the tops of both feet and all around both ankles and upward, that never happened before, it was all left up to thighs that can't work that low at that angle. I nearly lifted up from the lowest squat possible and managed that four times to exhaustion.
Then ran a couple of errands. Talked to a bunch of people.
Came back and was fiddling with the tripod and camera and terrace sliding door and my body ached all over and I'm all, wtf? Oh, the squat thing.
So I can't wait to heal and try it again.
The second exciting thing I learned today is if you pour your milk and freeze it a little bit first, say fifteen minutes, then your milkshakes come out thicker and last a lot longer.
Thanks Chickelit, I was thinking of posting that chart myself on the comments last night but you did a much better job of it here.
chick, I was thinking more of who controlled the purse strings rather than who has a pen and phone.
We should all take a tip from Chip's comment to never never stop learning and trying new things.
The debt's so high under Obama because of the cost of the all out war he's waging against ISIS.
Care to buy a bridge?
Try being honest for a change. If you go all the way back to FDR's administration, it would show the same thing. You can't blame Democrats for spending their way out of the depressions that Republicans seem to love inflicting on the American people.
Amazing. He takes a chart going back to 1941 (try going back to 1933 for shits and giggles) and compares it to a chart that goes to 1990. Republicans can't win without omitting the facts that disprove them.
It's just stupid to think that: 1) a President has the overwhelming effect on debt,
He does if he signs into law the bills that Republican congresses pass to throw off revenue by showering millionaires and billionaires with irresponsible tax cuts. Only Republicans pretend to think that tax cuts pay down debt, or "pay for themselves" as the jargon used to go. They pretend to think that they can fool people into agreeing with that mathematical absurdity. They live in a fantasy. Much like Chickie's chart that purports to compare a time frame extending to 1990 to a timeframe extending to 1941.
The real problem for Republicans is that people aren't as stupid as they need them to be. That's quite a dilemma.
The only answer for that is Trump, a man who says so much bullshit that he can't even remember or take responsibility for what he said just last week. A new news cycle must be generated and a new propagandistic, semi-true outrage must be sprayed like a firehose into the public discourse. A serious issue must be overblown.
And then Paul Ryan will stand in the well of the chamber and go, "Oh well."
Your methods aren't working. An abject Nixonian liar is kicking all your asses as the only responsible adult, and you bitch and moan about it. Look at what you're doing wrong, for FUCK's sake. Do you think I like or want Hillary? She's a moral abomination. I can't stand her. And yet, you will inflict her on the American people by virtue of your own refusal to just be adult enough about things that really matter and that you pretend to really care about. Should Hillary win? No. Is she the best medicine for fantasy-believing children who want to cut off their noses to spite their own faces? Apparently so.
You've coasted quite some mileage off of the many semi-conscious American voting public who can't learn from their own mistakes. It's time to ask yourselves if you're able to learn from your own.
25 years and Chickie's life is still, trying to get up that great big hill of hope, for his desperation.
So he cries sometimes when he lies in bed, just to get it all out what's in his head, that FDR wasn't facing something peculiar.
And he wakes in the morning and he steps outside, and he takes a deep breath and he gets real high, and he
screams at the top of his lungs, "What's going on!"
75 years =/= 25 years. Warning to the Republic: Republican deregulation sprees and ensuing depressions may cause budgeting issues.
Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.
Permanent election campaigns may screw with straightforward thinking and ordinary priorities.
Watch the Republicans lose the presidency because of this.
Couldn't happen to a more responsible party.
Chickie tries, oh my does he try, he tries all the time, against mathematical institution.
And he prays, oh my does he pray, he PRAYS EVERY SINGLE DAY, for mathematical revolution!
Dear Employer of Chickie: Please note that despite his fondness for and skill in advanced chemistry, he does not care to know the relationship between voluntary revenue loss and growth of debt. He actually believes that subtracting can lead, in a mysterious way, to addition.
And he will lose an election for the credibility he loses by perpetuating this myth on the American people. But that's ok. He will find an explanation just as outlandish for that, as well.
Or better yet. Just do no thinking about it and get really, REALLY angry with half the American people. Or just be angry at someone.
It's not a constructive cycle or approach. But his political tribe lives to make enemies out of all things. Rational thought is the first casualty.
He takes a chart going back to 1941 (try going back to 1933 for shits and giggles) and compares it to a chart that goes to 1990.
Ah, so the Democratic Party today is the same party that elected Henry Wallace as VP? So why all the fuss about Sanders?
Ah, so the Democratic Party today is the same party that elected Henry Wallace as VP? So why all the fuss about Sanders?
What would it matter if it was? You think FDR never had challengers? Anyway, politics change. Mathematics doesn't. But IOKIYAR.
The best thing about being a Republican is you get to pretend that you are fiscally responsible by not believing in mathematics.
What would it matter if it was?
Well, I shouldn't be surprised you were cool when the communists found common cause with Democrats even during WWII. Not even surprised you liked things back when Democrats controlled labor with Jim Crow laws. Tell us more about your love affair with the nostalgic DNC, ritmo.
I'll respond to when you make a comment serious enough to not pretend that we shouldn't have allied with Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo's enemies during WWII, Leland.
It's anachronistic to think anyone was politically opposed to segregation in 1940. The civil rights movement came about in the 1960s, after some liberal SCOTUS rulings on desegregating schools (which I guess Leland agrees with). So once you use your time machine to transport the political movement of the 1960s back to a Republican running in 1940, then I'll see your point about how he was right, Leland. Other than that, how horrible that people were creatures of their time.
It's been a while since i"ve seen anyone make a point as desperate as you just did. Hope you can do it again soon.
I'll respond to when you make a comment serious enough
I'm arguing as you do, with non-germane facts that ignore the present reality. When you decide to enter the 21st Century, I'll quit arguing with you about your support for communists in the 20th Century.
You really are as dumb as a stump. The graph left out a portion where the debt was similarly high, for similarly legitimate reasons. Republicans ever since Reagan raise debt when the economy's good. Fact. Democrats lower it when times are good. No one can keep it from increasing when times are wretched, as in the 1930s and during the Great Recession that your side prolonged. You call me a "communist" and "segregationist" because you're a retarded partisan fascist who can't accept that 25 years of comparisons are not analogous to 75 years of comparisons. Your fascist partisanship is injuring whatever brain you have left. You can't think, you can only be a partisan. Have fun.
you're a retarded partisan fascist
Nah dude, you were the one last week supporting the big oil deal made in Paris. That's straight up fascism in the way of Il Duce. You can call others name, but it is really you that supports fascism. You do know fascism is not at the opposite end of a spectrum from socialism, but rather a variation of the theme that is communism and socialism. You seem to like that theme. Ritmo, your attempts to deny and deflect fall flat when one pays attention to who it is you hate.
You can't think
Oh, the ad hominem attack. The evidence that one has lost the argument on the merits and is hoping insults will win the day. Ritmo, that much hate has gotta hurt. You might try taking a break. Don't worry, nobody will miss you.
Such a chart would still undermined the author's hypothesis that "Democrats almost consistently bring debt down. Republicans ever since Reagan almost consistently raise it."
Tell me how you undermine use of the word "almost". One exception out of seven examples is enough, I would think to count for "almost".
Thanks for the advice on what it's like to not be missed, Leland. I'm sure that's something you know a lot about.
Also, since you support corporatism in government for every industry and bribe except when it comes to carbon taxes, but you think that doesn't make you a fascist, what category does that place you in, exactly? Just a regular old Nazi?
Post a Comment