On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:09:33 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:49:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:48:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:






So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




****************************************** *********************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
****************************************** ******************************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.


Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

And this has what to do with economics?


Did you organize one of these?

Nope -- but as stated earlier, I will be attending one. Nice try at
changing the topic though

Data re move on anti-war vigils deleted


You're the one who brought up the 'personal attack'. I've pointed out that it's
not possible to discuss your 'chart' when the data (economic or otherwise) is
distorted. I've given you an example of the distortion.

You also brought up attending church to pray for the quick return of our
soldiers. That's something we all pray for, at least those of us who pray. There
are, in our midst, several libs who have strongly expressed their disbelief in
such activities.


Given that you failed to post any data supporting your position, I'll
use what Harry Posted

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Which I sure don't intemperate as supporting your argument.


Now you're leaving without explaining the 'personal attack'. Did the little math
lesson come across as a personal attack?
given your previous comments -- YES!

Well, I certainly didn't mean it that way. It provides a good example of how
percents can be used to distort data. It's an effective for showing 8th graders
an example of misleading statistics, especially when an actual graph of the
percents is constructed.

Be sure and look at the chart accompanying:

"Receipts, Outlays, Suprlus and Deficit as a % of GDP

So while in the previous graph you saw that the government was receiving more
and spending more in constant dollars, here you can see that in terms of the
economy as a whole, spending has been more-or-less constant since WWII."

This is in the data that Harry posted for you. As I can't see his stuff, I'll
assume what you said was correct.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:16 +0000, Jim, wrote:


Well i seem to recall that Clinton (a democrat) ran a surplus for a
couple
of years.

Since WWII, Reagan and the two Bushes are the only Presidents to add to
the Gross Federal Debt.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

What you been ingesting? Every POTUS has added to the debt. Clinton ran it
up the first 2 years in office, until the Repubs took over. And the deficit
was still there. They used the SS money to cover the excess spending and
there was a huge surge from the dot.com excesses which was also spent. LBJ
spent a lot more than came in. And Carter gave us 17% inflation.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally
fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Also See:
http://calc.dickinson.edu/Introducti...Task814/task81
4.html

If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.;
correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to
indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents. This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress
shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat
controlled congress is the runaway spender.

In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut.

"'""""He also makes racially based comments about the black students
he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining "''''''


What about you krause,, all that talk about Thai girls being whores,, And
you yourself said you visit Bangkok for 3 days at a time,,, lol,,, typical
sex tourists,, Hey krause,, why wouldn't you visit your home country there
Germany krause??? I mean prostitution is "legal" there krause,,, lol,,,, it
just isn't the same huh krause??? once it becomes legal??? No wonder you are
on your third wife there krause,,,






"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jim, wrote:
HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15 1
6.6%
30 1.3
4.3%
60 1.8
3.0%
90 2.0
2.2%
140 2.3
1.6%
220 2.5
1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?




Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.


IS that *REALLY* your job John?


It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to
Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia,
school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his
charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students he
babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining about
social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave that for
another day.

"'''''That's exactly the strategy. During the Reagan years, it was discussed
quite openly. Spend it all on the military, build up huge debt, and
there'd be no money left for necessary social programs.'''''''



LOL!!!,, krause the economists,,,communists economists,,, lol,,, krause the
damage you have done to the economy,,, lol,,, I mean in your life time (just
from what I know) you have held two union cards, lost your family business,
went on to teach about family business,, and now you would prefer another
power to take over your country and provide you with social programs,,
lol,,,, all take all take and no give,, right krause,,,

Stick to your lies krause,, that is the only thing you are good at,,,










"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 +0000, Jim, wrote:


So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.


I'm afraid he won't be able to. Anyway you want to slice it, there is
not
enough smoke, nor enough mirrors, to hide the fact that Reagan and the
two
Bushes are responsible for the surge in Federal Debt. I doubt it's an
accident. Bankrupting the country is a way to get rid of all those pesky
social programs, like education, social security, etc. etc.

Now, John, the following link looks at the debt in enough different ways,
that only those in true denial will not admit it's Reagan and the two
Bushes baby.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html



"Bankrupting the country is a way to get rid of all those pesky
social programs, like education, social security, etc. etc."


That's exactly the strategy. During the Reagan years, it was discussed
quite openly. Spend it all on the military, build up huge debt, and
there'd be no money left for necessary social programs.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:37:58 -0500, " Tuuk" wrote:

"'""""He also makes racially based comments about the black students
he babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining "''''''


What about you krause,, all that talk about Thai girls being whores,, And
you yourself said you visit Bangkok for 3 days at a time,,, lol,,, typical
sex tourists,, Hey krause,, why wouldn't you visit your home country there
Germany krause??? I mean prostitution is "legal" there krause,,, lol,,,, it
just isn't the same huh krause??? once it becomes legal??? No wonder you are
on your third wife there krause,,,






"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

It is, indeed. And by his own admission, he is lousy at it. According to
Herring, he is a substitute teacher for the Fairfax County, Virginia,
school system, and when he is assigned a job, he mainly babysits his
charges. He also makes racially based comments about the black students he
babysits. All in all, he's a piece of work. Oh, and that whining about
social security...Jim is on a military pension. But we'll leave that for
another day.


More **** from Krause. Infatuation's a bitch.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally
fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Also See:
http://calc.dickinson.edu/Introducti...Task814/task81
4.html

If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar i.e.;
correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend to
indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents. This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled congress
shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A Democrat
controlled congress is the runaway spender.

In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut.

But the dems cry when program cuts are proposed. The only other
solutions is to (you guessed it!) raise taxes.


Dave

" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
krause

Last I heard you had me in your bozo bin and were ignoring all my posts,
then you were printing them giving them all to the cop down the lane, then
ignoring them, now responding again,,, come on krause,, what are you ,,
some kind of a liar???


Oooops,,, I knew the answer before I asked the question,,,, its obvious,,





He just responded directly to a post of mine yet he claims he has me
killfiled.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it. Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995. Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.



In any case the Federal budget is too fat. Many programs need to be cut.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.


http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?


Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.


Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.

Dave