Joel Mathis comments on politics, books, and his Netflix queue.
Per your little chart from November, I've only a couple of things to say: you've got to be kidding me. How can you attempt to persuade an argument with partial facts? You seem to be using a little micro alongside macro economics to prove some kind of point without including the rest of the pertinent information. Where is the change in revenues associated with the change of debt, or how about the change in spending per capita alongside changes in debt per capita. And let's also look at where funding is started. Read your handy-dandy constitution. It starts in the House of Representatives. Surely you remember during the Reagan years, Tip O'Neil and his overwhelming Democrat-run Congress. We can't forget that the dems have been running Congress since before Truman. I noticed you didn't go back to Roosevelt. Why did you stop at Truman? Could it be due to the fact that the New Deal and New Dealer's more than did their fair share of increasing the debt more than 3 times the levels that put us in the Great Depression? Probably not though. Maybe you and most of your groupies are unaware a historical facts. Remember, you're allowed to have your own opinion, just not your own facts. Just another little tidbit for your chart. Look at Clinton's era, and notice, that was the Republican Revolution which wasn't as great a take-over as that happened this last November. I wonder if you'll add your Messiah to this list in a couple of years and have a nice negative green number beside his name too. This is just a rant. It's not meant to be a complete argument. I won't use unassociated numbers to back up my argument.
Post a Comment