# Pitting Great Debates **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 1, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019 "2004-06-01T04:54:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/161 "2004-06-03T12:00:57Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **Hentor** , you’re starting to piss me off. You keep going on about how ‘dishonest’ I was. First, let me remind you that you started off by claiming that Reagan neglected to invest in NASA. In fact, its budget went up under Reagan. Later, you admitted your error, and I magnanimously accepted that and didn’t say another word about it, despite that thread being peppered with insults against me, calling me a liar, you saying that I was a person of dubious morals, etc. **Sam** , Here’s me, in [Post #150](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4807185&postcount=150) of that thread. > [@HtB](#): > > First, thanks for calling my attention to a mistake that I made. Apparently NASA’s R&D budget was slashed during the Reagan years, but the overall budget did in fact increase. I apologize for that. Here’s you, in [Post #176](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4813215&postcount=176) > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Hentor has been doing twists and flips with the numbers, and has made several flat-out wrong claims, such as Reagan ‘slashing’ NASA’s budget, Here’s you, just above: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > I **magnanimously** accepted that and **didn’t say another word about it** Here’s me, right now: I take back my previous retraction and amend it. You are a lying nitwit who can’t stop lying at any point. BTW, the joke about your “dubious morals” was a play on your claim that: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Moral of the story: If you like space exploration, vote Republican. I think you have only enhanced the dubious quality of the morals that you draw with this current thread. There’s no point in my commenting about your Reagan diatribe. I already explained the source of my error, apologized and retracted it, the moment you pointed it out. A courtesy you rarely offer _anybody_. > [@](#): > > Now, let’s go over all this again… **Hentor** is spitting mad and hurling insults because of my original claim that NASA saw **big increases under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II,** and constant erosions under Clinton. Do you even remember what you said. You never said anything about Reagan. [You](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4801649&postcount=126) specifically _excluded_ Reagan because it fit your needs at that time. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second. Own up to the fact that you made an assertion by speaking out of the top of your hat, and are just trying to spin and dance and change the assertion to fit the actual data now. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/162 "2004-06-03T12:46:32Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush has screwed up lots of things. But he’s also being blamed for a lot of things that he shouldn’t be blamed for. A majority of the people (a big majority) think that the economy is in bad shape. It’s not. What kinda crack are you smoking? Seriously, this is a President that slashes revenue and boosts spending. Hello??? Sure, the bill may not come due until he’s out of office, but make no mistake it will come due. Or Sam, do you mean to say that slashing revenue (via tax cuts on top of the economic slowdown that we’ve seen in the internet bubble fallout [not Bush’s fault]) and increasing spending (fed programs not to mention Iraq which no one is willing to put a price tag on) is a good thing and won’t come back and bite us in the ass? I mean you’re probably old enough to have lived through the mess that was Reagonomics, and if not you have to look no farther than Japan. How much money does each and every US citizen/taxpayer have to fork over for our little Iraq adventure? Why don’t you take the cost of Iraq and divide by what 280 million, and you’ll have it. If the US was a company instead of a government, it would be on the way to bankruptcy. Hey, come to think of it, didn’t the company that Bush used to be CEO of go bankrupt because it had less revenue than liability? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/163 "2004-06-03T15:33:38Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > Yes. No. But you warm my heart by staying in character. Take one sentence of a post and try to build a rebuttle on it. I have nothing left to say. “Debate” by attrition continues. \*\*Sam \*\*: 1 **iamme99** : 0 -Joe, run Sammy run! ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/164 "2004-06-03T17:16:36Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Did I miss the memo where you are supposed to argue your opponent’s side for them? Or if you post a statistic from Handgun Control, inc, are you morally compelled to also provide an offsetting study from the NRA? Or do you let your opponent take care of that responsibility? Let me try again. I think it is perfectly fine to only present data which is advantageous to your position. What I don’t support is drawing conclusions based on that, obviously incomplete, data set. It is fine to say that the US has comparatively good SO[sup]2[/sup] emissions levels(well, as good as having a bad thing can ever really be). If you think of debate in the terms of vector physics this data would advance your position in the forward direction by a magnitude of 10. But this data isn’t the only vector on the table. There is another vector, the concentration of urban areas which produce this pollutant. It would be a vector in the opposite direction with magnitude 4 or so. Net gain of six towards the “The US is going a good job” position. This arguement is still a net gain for your side but is presented in a manner which does not immediately open it up to criticism as drawing overbroad conclusions from the data. Representing the magnitude ten vector in the direction you want while ignoring the magnitude four vector in the other direction undermines assertions based on being at the +10 position in a certain direction. If your position is indeed superior then it serves you best to provide all the context possible so you can draw a stronger conclusion once all the vectors are summed. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Absolutely. The larger context is my background knowledge of things like safety standards, certain environmental standards, worker safety standards, standards protecting the handicapped, and a host of other measures of civil society in which the U.S. excels. That experience and context is not available to everyone in the discussion. It is well and good to speak towards your area of expertise, but let’s not forget that not everyone is working from the same background. Context needs to be provided in the thread to be sure everyone is on the same page. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s no stretch to believe that the U.S. does a better job at a lot of things than other countries. I thought that might be the case, so I did a google search, and the first environmental stat I found showed the U.S. was significantly better than many other industrialized nations in at least one category. So I figured that was worth debate, and posted my thoughts here along with a link to the source data. Exactly what you’re supposed to do, no? You know, rather than calling me names, it might be more interesting if you had actually gone looking for some opposing data so we could actually have, oh I don’t know, a DEBATE? Most of this is true. Had you stopped short of drawing the conclusion “you’re going to find that the U.S. is better than many industrial nations on most [environmental indicators].” it would all be true. You present your data as the final word, the nail in the coffin. That just ain’t so, especially with shallow analysis as the genesis of your conclusion. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Belittle people? If my tone ever comes across as belittling, I apologize. As for ‘bulleted lists cribbed from Bremer’s press releases’, is there something wrong with that? As a way of presenting one side of a debate? What the government’s spokesman says is happening isn’t even worthy of being brought into a discussion? Sure it is, but it should be subjected to some analysis before being considered the final word. Reprinting it word-for-word and then claiming the debate is over is bullshit. That list fell all to pieces under even minimal analysis(I blame the bullet points, hate bullet points). And your response to those who dared to analyze the bulleted list was just plain wrong. I’ll quote it again, just to refresh your memory. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > You guys are just engaging in Shadenfreude. You take delight in thinking that this whole venture is turning out badly. Every piece of bad news allows you to nod smugly and say, “See? I told you so.” > > It’s too bad that you can’t see beyond this to the reality of what is going on in these countries. You’re hopelessly biased towards wanting to believe that the whole house of cards is collapsing in on the Bush administration, and it blinds you to the facts. Now if you care about debate then you should welcome analysis of the data you bring to the table. Ideally you’d do some yourself so you don’t come with a house of cards. Instead we see you disparaging the motives of those who bothered to do deeper analysis than you did. Respectful rebuttal of data points is kind of hard to do when one side has already proclaimed them conclusive and that anyone who would question them is “engaging in Shadenfreude.” > [@Sam Stone](#): > > As for ‘deriding people’ or ‘arguing with them’, I think that’s pretty subjective. What is a debate if not an argument? And I have been guilty of deriding people, but only in response to obnoxious behaviour on their part. Something I’m going to tone down, because I like it in myself even less than I like it in you. Pit threads notwithstanding. 🙂 Friend, you have never seen me deride someone. When I do I promise you’ll know it. Call people on their conclusions based on cherry-picked and poorly analyzed data? Yes. Hell I do the same to the leaders of the free world, not-so-free world, completely un-free world, etc. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/165 "2004-06-03T23:51:20Z")
> [@China Guy](#): > > If the US was a company instead of a government, it would be on the way to bankruptcy. Hey, come to think of it, didn’t the company that Bush used to be CEO of go bankrupt because it had less revenue than liability? Which one? IIRC, Dubyas ran _three_ companies into the dirt before he got siderailed into politics… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/166 "2004-06-04T03:44:28Z")
Um, if I’m not mistaken, **Sam** isn’t from the US-he’s from Canada, right? (It just looks like people are assuming he’s a US resident) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/167 "2004-06-04T03:50:58Z")
**China Guy** : What am I smoking? I said the economy is not bad, and you bring up stuff about paying for the Iraq war, and the deficit? These are not economic indicators. When I say the economy is not bad, I’m talking about… [China Daily - US management index rises sharply to near 20-year high](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/02/content_335692.htm) > [@](#): > > A gauge of US manufacturing rose unexpectedly last month, and is approaching a two-decade high, an industry report showed. A gauge of US manufacturing rose unexpectedly last month, and is approaching a two-decade high, an industry report showed. **More factories are hiring than at any time in 31 years.** And… [Reuters - Rousing May Auto Sales Seen as Boost for US Economy](http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=5326531) > [@](#): > > With the bulk of car makers having reported May sales, analysts estimate total North American-made vehicle sales ran at an annualized pace of around 14.39 million in May, well above forecasts of 13.4 million and dwarfing April’s disappointing 13.0 million. > > Economists tend to focus on North American-made autos, since these feed through directly to government estimates of gross domestic product and exclude imports. > > “These were just stunning numbers,” said Joe LaVorgna, senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities. “Higher gas prices may slow things in the future, but it clearly hasn’t hurt spending yet.” and… [Bloomberg - U.S. Economy Grew at 4.4% in First Quarter](http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aDu5ZP_dBjzY&refer=home) > [@](#): > > The U.S. economy grew at a 4.4 percent annual pace from January through March, faster than estimated last month, as businesses replenished inventories, government spending rose and home construction accelerated. \*\*Corporate profits over the last year increased by the most in two decades. \*\* > … > Profits, reported for the first time today, jumped 31.6 percent in the 12 months ended in March, the biggest increase since the first quarter of 1984. > > Increasing sales and profits have given companies such as Intel Corp. and Texas Instruments Inc. the confidence to ramp up production and boost inventories. A rebound in manufacturing and more investment in new equipment will enable the economy to keep growing for the rest of the year. > … > The Labor Department reported that first-time claims fell by 3,000 last week to 344,000. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose to 335,500 from 334,000, **which was the lowest since November 2000.** > … > **The economy expanded 5 percent during the 12 months ended in March, the most since 1984.** And it’s not just the rich guys… > [@](#): > > Wages and salaries increased $57.8 billion in the fourth quarter, **$18.3 billion more than previously estimated** , based on revisions that incorporate wage statistics from state unemployment insurance data. \*\*Disposable income, adjusted for inflation, rose 4.9 percent in the first three months of the year, more than the 4.3 percent previously estimated. \*\* and… > [@](#): > > Residential housing construction was revised higher to show a 3.8 percent annual rate last quarter compared with a 2.1 percent increase previously estimated. > … > Gross domestic product may expand 4.6 percent for all of 2004, compared with 3.1 percent in 2003, based on the median forecast in a separate Bloomberg News survey earlier this month. **This year’s projected growth would be the fastest since 7.2 percent in 1984.** and how about unemployment? How’s that doing? Is the recovery still ‘jobless’? [U.S. Unemployment Down to 5.6%](http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/07/business/usjobs_040507) > [@](#): > > The U.S. unemployment rate dipped to 5.6 per cent in April from 5.7 per cent in March as employers added about 288,000 jobs. > > The U.S. Labour Department said payrolls have now gone up for eight straight months as 867,000 jobs were added. > > The U.S. government said April’s job growth was broad, with the services sector leading the way. Professional and business services job growth was up by 123,000. > > The Labour Department also revised March’s job report upward. From an initial estimate of 308,000 jobs, the U.S. government said Friday that 337,000 jobs were added in that month. And with the latest report, there have been 1.1 million jobs created in the last year. The economy is not just good, it’s roaring. And the faster-than-expected growth may cause the deficit forecast for next year to be reduced by 100 billion dollars. The deficit may be cut in half in four years if spending is held to the rate of inflation, because of high GDP growth and increased tax revenues. The economy is not just good, it’s great. But in Great Debates, it’s taken as an article of faith that the economy is ‘terrible’, and whenever I try to claim otherwise people like **iamme99** go ape. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/168 "2004-06-04T04:19:54Z")
And now let’s see if **iamme99** is representing me fairly. I claimed that I did more than use one data point in my argument. This is **iamme’s** response to that, posted above: > [@](#): > > Second, even if I accept your hijack, you DID introduce ONE DATA POINT and ONE LINK on SO2 ONLY. Here for the record is the pertinent excerpt from what you posted in post #44 in “Screw the planet, I’m an American!”. > \*Quote: > Originally Posted by Sam Stone > For example of some comparative values, have a look at these graphs of SO2 emissions in North America, which shows that on a per-populated area Canada is significantly worse than the U.S. \* > > You discussed one data point (SO2) and posted one line to an SO2 chart. Here is that entire post by me, posted in its entirety. I’ll leave it up to the readers to decide if **iamme’s** characterization was fair: > [@](#): > > First of all, how does the EPA define ‘hazardous levels’? Is the definition the same as it was in, say, 1980? Or do they keep defining the standard down? > > Second, what was the absolute values, and how do they compare to smog levels in other countries? > > Third, how do today’s levels compare with the levels during the Clinton administration? Better? Worse? > > Without answering these questions, statements like the quoted one above tell us absolutely nothing about whether the U.S. is doing a better or worse job with the environment than other industrialized nations. You also have to look at things like food standards, trash removal, forest replanting, landfill management, water quality, etc. > > For example of some comparative values, have a look at these graphs of SO2 emissions in North America, which shows that on a per-populated area Canada is significantly worse than the U.S. > > But neither of those countries can hold a candle to Europe. For example, the U.S. SO2 emission rate is 1.68 thousand metrix tons/square km. Belgium, on the other hand, has an emissions rate of 21.39 thousand metrix tons/square km - a rate almost 12 times higher. In fact, 17 countries in the EU have worse SO2 emission rates per populated area, including Germany, the UK, Denmark, Italy, along with a lot of the former Soviet states. > > And even though China has huge area and a much lower level of industrialization, its SO2 emissions rate per inhabited KM is 50% greater than the U.S.'s. South Korea’s is over 10 times greater. > > (rates per inhabited Km are a good measure, BTW, because they give an indication of how ‘smoggy’ populated areas are) > > We could go down the list of environmental indicators, and you’re going to find that the U.S. is better than many industrial nations on most of them. Only when you consider aggregate output does the U.S. look bad, but again, that’s because the U.S. creates the most stuff (stuff which is used around the world, I might add). Notice I said, “Have a look at THESE GRAPHS”, and then reported SO2 numbers from China, Canada, Belgium, and a whole bunch of other countries. The source document I linked has the hard numbers for all of them. Note that I also did not claim that this was proof that the U.S. was cleaner. In fact, I was quite careful with my language, saying things like, “For an example of some comparative values”. At no point did I try to suggest that SO2 emissions were the be-all and end-all of the discussion. I offered them as an EXAMPLE. And later in the thread, linked to an article by Greg Easterbrook at the Brookings Institution, and said, “The article goes on to discuss other ways in which the Bush administration has been good to the environment, and a few in which the Bush administration has not been so good. In other words, a balanced picture.” At this point, the discussion devolved into an accusation of my ‘statistical sleight of hand’ In the meantime in that thread, the following claims were made by others: **iamme99** : > [@](#): > > Disposable is bad WHEN something doesn’t have to be disposable. Disposable items cost more to make, over time, than non-disposable items and use more of resources to produce and dispose of them. And interjecting WASHING MACHINES into a discussion on paper toilet wipes is quite the stretch! (offered without a cite) > [@](#): > > I just KNEW China, India, Indonesia, et al, were behind this in some way! You see, if they couldn’t make products so cheap with their cheap labor costs and availability, then we wouldn’t be so inclined to throw stuff away. So yet another reason why outsourcing/offshoring is bad for us (and the world). So there! All you free traders can put that in your pipe and smoke it. (offered without cite) > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what other incentives we could give corporations. They are already paying near the the lowest taxes, both in amount and effective rate since 1930. All research and development expenses are already deductible. (offered without cite) **Zagadka:** > [@](#): > > Continuing the week-long trend of bashing Libertaria, this is it - companies are not responsible, they can not self-regulate, and they do not act in the best interests of consumers. (offered without a cite) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/169 "2004-06-04T04:28:26Z")
**Hentor** : I see I did make another comment about your mistake. I didn’t remember it, and missed it on preview of the thread again. My apologies. As for the rest, I’m done with it. All the relevant data has been posted. You are, quite simply WRONG. Your claim that NASA’s budget was ‘pretty consistent’ was EXACTLY what you are accusing me of - statistical sleight of hand. The numbers in real or constant dollars CLEARLY show an increase under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. And a DECREASE under Clinton. This was my original point, and it was correct. We have now wasted huge amounts of time and effort on this nonsense, because you insist on trying to parse sentences with a microscope and play word games. In the meantime, you emit howlers like, “the budget was pretty consistent”, AFTER the raw numbers which show this isn’t the case had already been posted in that thread. Once again, I encourage anyone to go back and read my message with cited data above, or read the original thread again. If they haven’t all gone running for the exits already - this thread is getting tedious. And that’s all I have to say about that. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/170 "2004-06-04T05:12:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **China Guy** : What am I smoking? I said the economy is not bad, and you bring up stuff about paying for the Iraq war, and the deficit? These are not economic indicators. When I say the economy is not bad, I’m talking about… > And with the latest report, there have been 1.1 million jobs created in the last year. > > The economy is not just good, it’s roaring. And the faster-than-expected growth may cause the deficit forecast for next year to be reduced by 100 billion dollars. The deficit may be cut in half in four years if spending is held to the rate of inflation, because of high GDP growth and increased tax revenues. > > The economy is not just good, it’s great. But in Great Debates, it’s taken as an article of faith that the economy is ‘terrible’, and whenever I try to claim otherwise people like **iamme99** go ape. Maybe we should take the economy back to the Great Debates and see if all those “great” proof points hold up. Obviously we have a different definition of the economy being good or bad. I mean, if you buy a big house with 10% down, a new flash car on credit, have 2 credit cards on the limit buying cool electronics, and two more credit cards at the limit covering the gap between your monthly payment and income. Yep, it sure looks like you’ve got life made, but that bill will come due. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/171 "2004-06-04T05:39:51Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The economy is not just good, it’s great. But in Great Debates, it’s taken as an article of faith that the economy is ‘terrible’… [It’s not just terrible](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259021&page=1): > [@BobLibDem](#): > > The economy is in a shambles… I’m the only one who challenged that, and the response was: > [@](#): > > The number of jobs in the US marketplace has dropped during the Bush administration. I don’t believe that point is in question. Our 401k accounts, which did so magnificently in the Clinton years, have stalled since early 2000. Bush has stated, and I’ll search for a cite, that outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/172 "2004-06-04T05:53:11Z")
Sam, Not to belabor things (well, maybe a bit 🙂 ), but a couple of items: Much of the data you presented regarding the US economy is, at first glance, a strong indication that the US economy is doing well. However, where I take issue with your data is that it doesn’t present a full picture regarding the robustness of the US economy. To illustrate but one example - while it’s true that: “And with the latest report, there have been 1.1 million jobs created in the last year” this overlooks the fact that this 1.1 million is well below the expected level of jobs that the economy should be creating based on the number of new people entering the workforce. Plus, there has actually been a _net decrease_ in the total number of jobs within the entire economy. Not to mention that the current batch of new jobs created is well below what the current adminstration had initially projected (which was roundly criticized by some economists as wildly optimistic). Of course, it’s not your job to point out the above (that’s for those don’t agree with your assessment). > [@](#): > > The economy is not just good, it’s roaring. And the faster-than-expected growth may cause the deficit forecast for next year to be reduced by 100 billion dollars. The deficit may be cut in half in four years if spending is held to the rate of inflation, because of high GDP growth and increased tax revenues. > > The economy is not just good, it’s great. But in Great Debates, it’s taken as an article of faith that the economy is ‘terrible’, and whenever I try to claim otherwise people like **iamme99** go ape. The above I just don’t agree with you. I’ll concede that the economy is not terrible - it’s clearly getting better, but I wouldn’t go so far to say that’s it is “great” or “roaring”. Maybe in another 6 months if conditions continue to improve, then yes, maybe “great” or “roaring” could be use to accurately describe the economy. But I think that’s just a difference in opinion or word usage. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/173 "2004-06-04T06:10:01Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Um, if I’m not mistaken, **Sam** isn’t from the US-he’s from Canada, right? > > (It just looks like people are assuming he’s a US resident) Could you give us an example? I’m trying to determine the relevance of your comment. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/174 "2004-06-04T06:11:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The economy is not just good, it’s great. But in Great Debates, it’s taken as an article of faith that the economy is ‘terrible’, and whenever I try to claim otherwise people like **iamme99** go ape. “The economy is doing fine, but the people aren’t.” - General Emelio Medici, head-of-state of Brazil, 1971 (remarking on the distortion that is caused by purely statistical analysis) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/175 "2004-06-04T12:16:37Z")
**Sam** : Real life considerations are making it damn near impossible for me to participate in this discussion, but I’m following it keenly. In all brevity, I want to respond to a couple of points. Regarding the debate on NASA: > [@](#): > > _BTW, why do you think that a comparison of NASA’s budget as a percentage of total expenditures is a more valid example than just showing how much money NASA got?_ Well, it will probably come as no surprise to you that I agree with Hentor: you’re exaggerating. You continue to insist on doing so, for reasons known only to yourself. **Zoe** makes this point quite clearly: NASA clearly did not receive “_substantial funding increases_” under Bush I and II, and decreases under Clinton. Rather, the variations in NASA’s budget reflect variations in total federal expenditures and in particular a steadily growing (or shrinking) federal budget. _If_, as you say, Bush had initiated a “_huge, substantial, massive_” funding increase for NASA, one would naturally expect to see this increase in terms of NASA’s relationship to the total federal budget. If Clinton had slashed NASA’s budget to .5% of total federal expenditures, while Bush had increased it to 1.5% of those expenditures, _then_ you would have a strong case. As is, the rise and fall of NASA’s budget merely reflects the generally spending philosophies of the presidents in question: ironically, you appear to be praising Bush because his NASA budget reflects his propensity to spend more across the board (NASA included), and criticizing Clinton because his NASA budget reflected a tendency to reign in expenditures across the board (NASA included). Like many other examples presented in this thread, you take a single “data point” in isolation (in this case, NASA’s budget) and draw very broad, often overly broad, conclusions from it. This tendency opens you up for charges of partisanship, since it appears that you tend to start with preformed conclusions and then go out of your way to locate evidence to support them, instead of the other way round. Regarding this: > [@](#): > > \*I claimed that I did more than use one data point in my argument…. > > Notice I said, “Have a look at THESE GRAPHS”, and then reported SO2 numbers from China, Canada, Belgium, and a whole bunch of other countries. The source document I linked has the hard numbers for all of them.\* Don’t mince words, **Sam**. The point is that you chose to focus on one particular pollutant in isolation, and you did this despite the claim you made in the previous paragraph that such factors, taken in isolation, can’t really tell us much. You may have hummed, and hawed, and hedged your bets, but its clear that you wish to communicate with this particular example that the US is significantly cleaner than other countries. In closing, I just want to commend **Mtgman** for his concise, clear-headed responses in this thread. Very impressive, I must say. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/176 "2004-06-04T17:49:36Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And the faster-than-expected growth may cause the deficit forecast for next year to be reduced by 100 billion dollars. The deficit may be cut in half in four years if spending is held to the rate of inflation, because of high GDP growth and increased tax revenues. Cite please. In particular, what are you assuming in regards to the Bush tax cut sunsets and the alternate minimum tax? And also, how do you explain how we are going to hold spending at the rate of inflation…given the rate at which it has been increasing during the Bush years, particularly for the military (which is a major chunk of the discretionary budget)? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/177 "2004-06-04T18:23:33Z")
A cite is particularly necessary since a White House spokesman in a [statement](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/business/04CND-JOBS.html) today talked about the budget deficit being cut in half over **5 years** : > [@](#): > > The jobs report “is a sign that the President’s economic program is working,” said Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman. > > “It underscores why it is necessary to stick with the president’s plan of low taxes and cutting the federal budget deficit in half over the next five years with stronger economic growth and spending restraint.” And, this estimate of being able to cut the deficit in half over 5 years is based on smoke and mirrors, as [this](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13463-2004Feb27.html) Washington Post article from 3 months ago explains: > [@](#): > > President Bush’s budget would not cut the budget deficit in half over five years, as the president has promised, and would run up $2.75 trillion in additional debt over the next decade, according to an analysis the Congressional Budget Office issued yesterday. > > The report suggests that the administration has given an overly pessimistic view of the deficit this year but overly optimistic forecasts for later years to back up its assertion that the budget deficit could be cut in half within five years. > > … > > By those [CBO] estimates, the president’s plan over the first five years would trim the deficit by holding spending below the levels it would reach if it were allowed to rise with inflation. But in the next five years, the government’s fiscal picture would deteriorate badly, mainly because of the cost of extending Bush’s tax cuts beyond their expiration dates, the CBO says. Under the president’s policies, tax revenue through 2014 would fall $1.3 trillion below where they would be if the tax cuts were allowed to lapse. > > … > > The CBO estimate does not take into account funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond this year because Bush included no such funding in his budget request. White House officials have conceded that they will have to seek as much as $50 billion in war funding, probably after the November election. > > The CBO estimate also includes no fix for the burgeoning problem of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income-tax system designed to ensure that the rich pay taxes but that increasingly has ensnared the middle class. There might be a little bit of revision in the positive direction since February now that payrolls are finally expanding. But, I doubt it will be enough to offset all of these other things. [Here](http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/election_budget/) is a CNN/Money Magazine article on Bush’s claim to cut the deficit in half. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/178 "2004-06-04T18:29:39Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **Hentor** : I see I did make another comment about your mistake. I didn’t remember it, and missed it on preview of the thread again. My apologies. Fine, accepted. > [@](#): > > The numbers in real or constant dollars CLEARLY show an increase under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. And a DECREASE under Clinton. This was my original point, and it was correct. We have now wasted huge amounts of time and effort on this nonsense, because you insist on trying to parse sentences with a microscope and play word games. For the second time in this thread, I point out to you that your original point had nothing to do with Reagan. Please stop lying. In fact, here is your original point from the thread, which I have already repasted several times and bolded for your own and Shodan’s edification. [THIS IS YOUR ORIGINAL ASSERTION](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4801649&postcount=126) You needed to make the point that the Bush NASA proposal was not simply election year pandering, but an honest, deeply felt issue on the part of W. So you claimed that “[t]he Bush family has always been nuts about space.” In service of this assertion, you claimed that they represented _the only two times_ that NASA received “larger than average” increases. Including Reagan would not have served your purpose of portraying a specific NASA interest by W. So you didn’t. You excluded him. Yet you continue to claim that he was part of your original claim. I want to be done with this too, so I offer you the following: Your current claim is that your original point was > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The numbers in real or constant dollars CLEARLY show an increase under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. And a DECREASE under Clinton. This was my original point, and it was correct. Here is my offer: **If you can find any reference to Reagan in your original point [(again, linked here)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4801649&postcount=126)as you now claim, I will quit this board.** If you cannot, you are simply following up on a lie with a further lie. And **Shodan** , where have you gone? No interest in defending your claims in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/179 "2004-06-04T19:20:36Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > Could you give us an example? I’m trying to determine the relevance of your comment. Just the “you care about your country”. Since he’s talking about the US, I thought someone assumed he was from here. Not a big deal. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019/180 "2004-06-04T19:55:19Z")
There are a great number of conservative posters and liberals here. I’ve never felt the board tilted one way or another. When I felt I was a conservative, there were plenty of posters I felt were liberals that I respected. Now, I don’t know what I am, but I’m definitely more liberal, and there’s plenty conservative posters I respect. Mostly, though, they don’t post much. Because the average GD thread is as “great” of a debate as, well, nothing. It’s IMHO with cites. Boring, pedantic, and completely unable to be resolved because it is either too timely or too shallow. There’s nothing great-debatey about bashing a president, or supporting him, in general, though I admit a president’s actions might rekindle debates on how to handle issues that nations face time and time again (war, poverty, research, etc). Most GD threads are political wanking. Stop reading them, **Sam**. Just stop. Personally, I think your post quality has dropped significantly in the past year or so. If you’re frustrated, just stop. Get your head together, stop chasing liberal bogeymen and return to civilized debate on long-standing topics that will be important even after Bush leaves (which, face it, he must in at most four years). Bush rallies and Bush bashing aren’t longstanding issues that conservatives and liberals face. Obviously my own bias and interests show through here, but there was a time I really respected you. Lately you seem to be a parody of your former self. Now, about this log in my eye… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-great-debates/248019.md?page=10)