June 15, 200818 yr H, you lost me (or I lost you). In post #40, I was speaking about how we had come to a disagreement about "at what point" are tax revenues maximized in relation to tax cuts. When I said "overwhelming majority", I meant that economists now are recommending tax cuts (not just for the rich, for everyone). Are you going to disagree with me there? Because before I do find links, I want to make sure we are on the same page. The overwhelming majority of economists are not supporting higher taxes right now, for any class. Anyways, I hope the discussion has come back to whether or not tax cuts boost the economy, as Aces claimed in post #31, and I validated in the latter part of post #35. This is what has started the conversation, and you have not addressed this. I will be glad to address both points, I just want to make sure that we are on the same page and talking about the same thing. I will avoid Heritage Foundation if that pleases you.
June 15, 200818 yr No, if you'd been paying attention to the entire flow of this thread, I first posted (see post 32) real budget data from official sources showing that there is no coherent evidence of higher GDP growth with a lower top bracket income tax rate. That, I believe was your claim. And it was not supported by the data (for example, we actually had higher annual GDP growth in the 1970's with 70% top tax bracket than we have had from 1987 to present with a 36.8% top tax bracket). Then, there was a drivelling response about how the economy cannot continue to grow "exponentially" (a term which has a specific mathematical meaning, but which is misused constantly in contemporary language) which was quite frankly inadeqate to refute the GDP growth rate data. Then, cch5432 posted several bits of analysis from the Heritage Foundation, as a position in favor of further cuts to the top tax bracket. And I found a few links making contrasting claims, not necessarily embracing them, but simply to show that there are widely varying views on the subject. Some (and you know who you are) have been so bold as to claim that it should by now be common knowledge that tax cuts boost revenues as a general rule and that economists are in widespread agreement on this. That agreement is simply not the case and I pointed that out with one (admittedly) left-leaning paper. By the way, the second link I provided was to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan site, but I'm sure you'll tell us that the parent organization, the Annenberg Foundation, received a large donation from George Soros' cousin's neighbor's uncle's dog. Now pay attention, the latest claim that is being made (post #40) is that the overwhelming majority of economists believe we need tax cuts now with the implication being that we need the McCain tax cuts now. I would like to see a link documenting this near consensus among economists, AND I asked for this to not be from a partisan source (such as the Heritage Foundation) since it should be easy to find such evidence of such overwhelming agreement (if it exists) from an abundance of nonpartisan sources. If you can provide this information, I'll be happy to read it. Otherwise, I'll wait for CCH5432's response. How you can continue to deny a cause and effect relationship between a low tax rate and a healthy economy is amazing. If you can honestly look at the employment, inflation, and interest rates of the Carter and Reagan administratons and argue that Reagan's tax policies did not play a major role in the turnaround, then there is not much point in debating the issue any further. The fact is that when government revenues grow, government grows. The deficit did not grow under Reagan because of tax cuts, it grew because of spending increases. Money spent in the private sector almost always benefits society more than money spent by the government. I am constantly amazed at how seriously people take the promises of political candidates. How can anybody seriously select a candidate based on whose promises on tax policy are better? Bill Clinton scrapped his me-too middle income tax cut "plan" immediately after getting elected because he claimed the economy was worse than he though. (The truth was it was better than it was when he made the promise in the heat of the campaign.) Candidates make promises to get the keys to the White House. The true costs and benefits of the Obama and McCain tax plans will forever remain unknown and unknowable because they will never be implemented as promised. Arguing over whose campaign promises are better is like debating the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.:lol:
June 15, 200818 yr There is some good discussion going on in here. If I knew more about the thread topic I'd jump in, but since I do not, I am just going to keep reading and enjoying. Good job guys :lol: :thumb:.
June 15, 200818 yr Author How you can continue to deny a cause and effect relationship between a low tax rate and a healthy economy is amazing. If you can honestly look at the employment, inflation, and interest rates of the Carter and Reagan administratons and argue that Reagan's tax policies did not play a major role in the turnaround, then there is not much point in debating the issue any further. AF, I don't automatically bow at the altar of supply side economics. If the cause and effect relationship is so strong and undeniable, why isn't the evidence crystal clear in the GDP growth rate data? It is not. Tax rates are lower in the post-Bush tax cut era than they have been in 60 years, and yet the GDP growth rate is lower now (2001-2007) than it was in the 1970s when tax rates were significantly higher. Why? And why should we believe that if taxes are further cut (resulting in even higher deficits), the economy will grow? The data doesn't support your claim. The fact is that when government revenues grow, government grows. The deficit did not grow under Reagan because of tax cuts, it grew because of spending increases. Money spent in the private sector almost always benefits society more than money spent by the government. There is an underlying assumption difference here. Your position (stated many times before) is that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I assume that since you put no conditions on your statement, you think tax cuts always increase tax revenues. I think there is enough evidence concerning the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's and the Bush 2001 tax cuts to question whether this is true. There are certainly plenty of economists (who are not associated with either the Heritage Foundation or the CBPP) who believe that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They may stimulate economic growth to a degree (although even that is somewhat called into question by the GDP growth rate analysis), however is that growth boost high enough to compensate for the lost revenue associated with the lower rates? Take a look at this graph: You can see on here that revenue (yellow line) declined sharply for several years after 1981 (Reagan tax cuts) and declined sharply after the 2001 Bush tax cuts. Also of note is that in each case it took several years for the rate of increase in federal tax revenue (represented by the slope of the yellow line) to return to the rate of increase evident in the years immediately preceding the tax cuts. It is entirely plausible in my mind that, had the tax cuts not taken place, the slope of the revenue line (representing revenue growth) would have continued on up without the sharp dropoffs and their cumulative loss of tax revenue. There are certainly scores of economists who hold this belief. I am constantly amazed at how seriously people take the promises of political candidates. How can anybody seriously select a candidate based on whose promises on tax policy are better? Bill Clinton scrapped his me-too middle income tax cut "plan" immediately after getting elected because he claimed the economy was worse than he though. (The truth was it was better than it was when he made the promise in the heat of the campaign.) Candidates make promises to get the keys to the White House. The true costs and benefits of the Obama and McCain tax plans will forever remain unknown and unknowable because they will never be implemented as promised. Arguing over whose campaign promises are better is like debating the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin.:lol: I'm not necessarily in support of any tax cuts for anybody. We've got a heck of a deficit problem and I think it is irresponsible to cut taxes if we're not serious about cutting spending (which neither candidate appears to be). I am not in favor of extending the Bush 2001 tax cuts because they have had the effect of putting our out of control spending on the national credit card.
June 15, 200818 yr There is some good discussion going on in here. If I knew more about the thread topic I'd jump in, but since I do not, I am just going to keep reading and enjoying. Good job guys :lol: :thumb:. That never stops any of us, jump on in. As you can see, even the economists can't agree on the effect of tax cuts on revenue and the economy.
June 15, 200818 yr Author H, you lost me (or I lost you). In post #40, I was speaking about how we had come to a disagreement about "at what point" are tax revenues maximized in relation to tax cuts. When I said "overwhelming majority", I meant that economists now are recommending tax cuts (not just for the rich, for everyone). Are you going to disagree with me there? Because before I do find links, I want to make sure we are on the same page. The overwhelming majority of economists are not supporting higher taxes right now, for any class. I would like to see evidence of an overwhelming majority of economists who say we need tax cuts in light of the current deficit situation. I am finding plenty of evidence of economists saying any further tax reductions need to be offset with spending cuts (so as not to further increase the deficit). The happy talk about tax cuts that pay for themselves doesn't carry much weight among serious economists. Anyways, I hope the discussion has come back to whether or not tax cuts boost the economy, as Aces claimed in post #31, and I validated in the latter part of post #35. This is what has started the conversation, and you have not addressed this. I will be glad to address both points, I just want to make sure that we are on the same page and talking about the same thing. I will avoid Heritage Foundation if that pleases you. Aces calimed that tax cuts boost the economy. While I suspect there might be a small effect, the GDP growth rate data does not really support this notion.
June 15, 200818 yr Author There is an underlying assumption difference here. Your position (stated many times before) is that tax cuts increase tax revenues. I assume that since you put no conditions on your statement, you think tax cuts always increase tax revenues. I think there is enough evidence concerning the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's and the Bush 2001 tax cuts to question whether this is true. There are certainly plenty of economists (who are not associated with either the Heritage Foundation or the CBPP) who believe that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They may stimulate economic growth to a degree (although even that is somewhat called into question by the GDP growth rate analysis), however is that growth boost high enough to compensate for the lost revenue associated with the lower rates? Take a look at this graph: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending-Is-Growing.html You can see on here that revenue (yellow line) declined sharply for several years after 1981 (Reagan tax cuts) and declined sharply after the 2001 Bush tax cuts. Also of note is that in each case it took several years for the rate of increase in federal tax revenue (represented by the slope of the yellow line) to return to the rate of increase evident in the years immediately preceding the tax cuts. It is entirely plausible in my mind that, had the tax cuts not taken place, the slope of the revenue line (representing revenue growth) would have continued on up without the sharp dropoffs and their cumulative loss of tax revenue. There are certainly scores of economists who hold this belief. In my earlier post, I botched up the URL link showing the graph I was referring to. The link should be: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending-Is-Growing.html
June 15, 200818 yr AF, I don't automatically bow at the altar of supply side economics. If the cause and effect relationship is so strong and undeniable, why isn't the evidence crystal clear in the GDP growth rate data? It is not. Tax rates are lower in the post-Bush tax cut era than they have been in 60 years, and yet the GDP growth rate is lower now (2001-2007) than it was in the 1970s when tax rates were significantly higher. Why? And why should we believe that if taxes are further cut (resulting in even higher deficits), the economy will grow? The data doesn't support your claim.It's funny how when one focuses on juust the pertinent data how much more clear the emerging picture becomes. Before and After Snapshot of GDP Growth Rate Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 Year GDP Growth % Comment 1984 7.19 1983 4.52 1982 -1.94 1981 2.52 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 signed into law. 1980 -0.23 1979 3.16 Now let us take a focused look at the impact of the Kennedy tax cuts on the economy. To fully appreciate the effect of those tax cuts, it is necessary to examine both the chronology of the tax cuts and the GDP growth rate. The first tax cuts affected corprate rates. Steep cuts to the top marginal income tax rates were implemented after Kennedy's death. As for the rest of your response, I may address it later. Obviously, there is a point of diminishing returns for income tax cuts because a 0% tax rate would yield no tax revenue. If my failure to stipulate that self evident fact was confusing, then I am sorry for not being more clear. The tax cuts made by both JFK and Reagan had dramatic impacts upon the economy. Hopefully, this will be your last attempt to paint the Reagan tax cuts as anything but a resounding success. The following screenshots were taken from Tax Policy & the 1960s
June 15, 200818 yr Author It's funny how when one focuses on juust the pertinent data how much more clear the emerging picture becomes. Before and After Snapshot of GDP Growth Rate Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 Year GDP Growth % Comment 1984 7.19 1983 4.52 1982 -1.94 1981 2.52 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 signed into law. 1980 -0.23 1979 3.16 A statistics expert would tell you that one cannot legitimately reach your conclusion from your 6 point data set because it is way too small to demonstrate statistical significance. The universally-accepted method of determining if there is a significant difference between two groups of data is to perform a hypothesis test on the data. This method is used throughout private industry, the scientific community, the medical research community, within the legal system, and in countless other arenas. I ran a hypothesis test on your data, comparing 1979-1981 periods (pre-Reagan tax cut) to 1982-1984 (post tax cut) and the results showed that there is no statistically significant difference between the GDP growth rates before and after the tax cuts. You don't gain anything by cherry-picking the data down to 3 years on either side of the cut because it just makes the bar to prove statistical significance much higher. So these numbers don't form the basis of a convincing argument to anyone with an understanding of statistical methods. All that aside, if cutting the top tax bracket from over 70% to 50% is such a surefire way to boost GDP growth, shouldn't that benefit be permanently evident in the GDP growth rate (that is, not limited to just a few years after the tax cut)? In other words, if your claim of lower taxes=higher growth is true, wouldn't you expect the average GDP growth rate for 10 years with a 70% tax rate to be lower than the average GDP growth rate for 10 years with a 50% tax rate? If your case is so compelling, you shouldn't have to limit your view to a few years before and a few years after. That is precisely why it is valid to look at, say, ten years on either side of the tax cut. Year________Top Tax Rate_________GDP Growth 1972___________70%_________________5.6% 1973___________70%_________________5.9% 1974___________70%________________ -0.6% 1975___________70%________________-0.3% 1976___________70%_________________5.6% 1977___________70%_________________4.7% 1978___________70%_________________5.6% 1979___________70%_________________3.2% 1980___________70%_________________-0.2% 1981___________70%_________________2.5% 1972-1981 Average GDP Growth: 3.18% Year________Top Tax Rate_________GDP Growth 1982___________50%_________________-2.1% 1983___________50%_________________4.3% 1984___________50%________________ 7.3% 1985___________50%_________________3.8% 1986___________50%_________________3.4% 1987___________38.5%_______________3.4% 1988___________33%_________________4.2% 1989___________33%_________________3.5% 1990___________33%_________________1.7% 1991___________31%_________________-0.5% 1982-1991 Average GDP Growth: 2.90% You shouldn't have to zero in on an extremely small time period to prove your point about tax cuts and GDP growth. If lower taxes make such a difference in economic growth rate, that difference should be observable over enough years to take some of the natural variation out of the picture. It's kind of like if you installed new spark plugs in your car in hopes that they would improve the mileage. It wouldn't be valid to draw a conclusion about their effectiveness using the last tank of gas before the change and the first tank of gas after the change (those two tankfuls might not be representative of all the different types of driving you do). It would make much more sense to compare the averages of the last ten tankfuls and the first ten tankfuls. And if the plug change truly made a difference, you should be able to see a difference. Same idea applies here. Now let us take a focused look at the impact of the Kennedy tax cuts on the economy. To fully appreciate the effect of those tax cuts, it is necessary to examine both the chronology of the tax cuts and the GDP growth rate. The first tax cuts affected corprate rates. Steep cuts to the top marginal income tax rates were implemented after Kennedy's death. As for the rest of your response, I may address it later. Obviously, there is a point of diminishing returns for income tax cuts because a 0% tax rate would yield no tax revenue. If my failure to stipulate that self evident fact was confusing, then I am sorry for not being more clear. The tax cuts made by both JFK and Reagan had dramatic impacts upon the economy. Hopefully, this will be your last attempt to paint the Reagan tax cuts as anything but a resounding success. The following screenshots were taken from Tax Policy & the 1960s The data you present on the Kennedy tax cuts is more compelling, however it is not directly applicable to today's situation because we no longer have a 90% top tax bracket. If we did, and you were making your argument to cut taxes to 70% on the basis of the 1964 tax cuts, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, when analyzed using a statistically valid method, the Reagan tax cuts (going from 70% to 50% and then to 38.5%) didn't show a similar result on post-cut GDP growth and neither do the 2001 Bush tax cuts (the results of which are clearly the most applicable to the discussion around 2008 tax policy). You are not going to win this argument with the data we have.
June 15, 200818 yr I would like to see evidence of an overwhelming majority of economists who say we need tax cuts in light of the current deficit situation. I am finding plenty of evidence of economists saying any further tax reductions need to be offset with spending cuts (so as not to further increase the deficit). The happy talk about tax cuts that pay for themselves doesn't carry much weight among serious economists. I never said anything about spending. I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of economists support reduced government spending as well. You are putting words in my mouth. Or I misspoke. Aces calimed that tax cuts boost the economy. While I suspect there might be a small effect, the GDP growth rate data does not really support this notion. The growth rate of GDP is not going to exponentially go up. First of all, recessions happen regardless of fiscal and monetary policy. Secondly, the bigger our economy gets, the less capable it is of huge growth (in terms of percentage). When I was 10 years old, I may have grown 10 inches in a year. When I was 17 years old, I may have grown 1 inch in a year. I simply didn't have as much room to grow, but I was still growing. A poor example, but I don't understand why you insist that growth rate must constantly be rising from the previous year, instead of just realizing that our economy isn't going to grow to infinity. ECO 201: You cut taxes. People have more money to spend and more money to save. The money they spend goes to other people's wages and so forth. The money they save goes to banks, which loan out to firms and households to spend, do R&D, ect. These things boost the economy. You aren't going to formulate an argument that tax hikes improve the economy.
June 16, 200818 yr Year________Top Tax Rate_________GDP Growth 1972___________70%_________________5.6% 1973___________70%_________________5.9% 1974___________70%________________ -0.6% 1975___________70%________________-0.3% 1976___________70%_________________5.6% 1977___________70%_________________4.7% 1978___________70%_________________5.6% 1979___________70%_________________3.2% 1980___________70%_________________-0.2% 1981___________70%_________________2.5% 1972-1981 Average GDP Growth: 3.18% Year________Top Tax Rate_________GDP Growth 1982___________50%_________________-2.1% 1983___________50%_________________4.3% 1984___________50%________________ 7.3% 1985___________50%_________________3.8% 1986___________50%_________________3.4% 1987___________38.5%_______________3.4% 1988___________33%_________________4.2% 1989___________33%_________________3.5% 1990___________33%_________________1.7% 1991___________31%_________________-0.5% 1982-1991 Average GDP Growth: 2.90% Where did you get these numbers from? Here is what I have: 1972------- 5.3 1973------- 5.8 1974------- -0.5 1975------- -0.2 1976------- 5.3 1977------- 4.6 1978------- 5.6 1979------- 3.2 1980-------- -0.2 1981-------- 2.5 Average GDP Growth: 3.14 1982-------- - 1.9 1983-------- 4.5 1984-------- 7.2 1985-------- 4.1 1986-------- 3.5 1987-------- 3.4 1988-------- 4.1 1989-------- 3.5 1990-------- 1.9 1991-------- -0.2 Average GDP Growth: 3.01 Also, out of curiosity, why did you pick those as the parameters? I am no statistical expert. Both you and Aces are putting up numbers that go beyond my knowledge. However, you both can spin them as much as you'd like. I know economic theory. I know what Friedman, von Hayek, members of the Chicago School, etc. have found. Tax cuts can only boost the economy. I am not in favor of tax cuts matched with deficit spending. But I rarely (if ever) support a tax hike.
June 16, 200818 yr Author Where did you get these numbers from? Here is what I have: 1972------- 5.3 1973------- 5.8 1974------- -0.5 1975------- -0.2 1976------- 5.3 1977------- 4.6 1978------- 5.6 1979------- 3.2 1980-------- -0.2 1981-------- 2.5 Average GDP Growth: 3.14 1982-------- - 1.9 1983-------- 4.5 1984-------- 7.2 1985-------- 4.1 1986-------- 3.5 1987-------- 3.4 1988-------- 4.1 1989-------- 3.5 1990-------- 1.9 1991-------- -0.2 Average GDP Growth: 3.01 Also, out of curiosity, why did you pick those as the parameters? I am no statistical expert. Both you and Aces are putting up numbers that go beyond my knowledge. However, you both can spin them as much as you'd like. I know economic theory. I know what Friedman, von Hayek, members of the Chicago School, etc. have found. Tax cuts can only boost the economy. I am not in favor of tax cuts matched with deficit spending. But I rarely (if ever) support a tax hike. The GDP growth rates I used came from the USDA Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Data can be found at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealGDPValues.xls There are slight differences between USDA ERS data and the BEA data. Both organizations report the same absolute annual GDP data, but BEA is doing something in their calculation of GDP annual growth rate that gives a slightly different result. The USDA growth rates are calculated by: (GDPyear2 - GDPyear1)/(GDPyear1) x 100 Regardless of which numbers are used, the conclusion is the same. I picked 10 years before the 1981 Reagan tax cuts and 10 years after to have a reasonable sample size for each policy for a 2 sample t test. Ten points for each case is generally accepted as a minimum sample size for this type of hypothesis test.
June 16, 200818 yr A statistics expert would tell you that one cannot legitimately reach your conclusion from your 6 point data set because it is way too small to demonstrate statistical significance. ' ' ' You are not going to win this argument with the data we have. :laugh::laugh: You have a difficult time conceding defeat. A statistical expert would have quickly pointed out that you cannot take a single statistical measure of a complex system such as a national economy and say that small differences in that measure is statistically significant - yet that is exactly what you did. By lumping in additional measurements over very long time periods, you masked the effect that tax rate reductions actually had on the economy because you introduced more variation not related to tax rate cuts. Then you declared that there is no evidence that the tax rate cuts had much of an impact. Incredible! My analysis is more valid statistically. The health of the economy does not lend itself to a simple statisticfal analysis of a single variable. Over multiple threads, I have demonstrated the positive impact that Reagan's policies (tax cuts included) had on the national economy by listing the interest rates, unemployment rates, inflation rates, and now the GDP growth rates that he inherited from Carter and the rates that followed his tax policy changes. You focused on a single measure and you blurred Reagan's influence by lumping his two terms in with the GDP rates of later presidents. A statistician would find my analysis of four economic measures that include only the years from the Reagan presidency more statistically valid than your's. At least a nonpartisan statistician would. A Democratic pollster schooled in electoral statistical methods might disagree. :lol:
June 16, 200818 yr I picked 10 years before the 1981 Reagan tax cuts and 10 years after to have a reasonable sample size for each policy for a 2 sample t test. Ten points for each case is generally accepted as a minimum sample size for this type of hypothesis test.You could just as easily picked 10 months or 10 decades (if data were available) as 10 years as your sampling increment and the result would have been markedly different. You are trying to apply objective statistical measures in a way to make your case. In other words, your sample is biased. Using your logic, all I need to do is find monthly records of US GDP growth, which would give me 60 data points, and then my case would be much more statistically valid than your case that uses a sample size of 10. GDP growth rates do not occur randomly and statistical methods were never intended to be applied as you are attempting to apply them in this case.
June 16, 200818 yr Author :laugh::laugh: You have a difficult time conceding defeat. A statistical expert would have quickly pointed out that you cannot take a single statistical measure of a complex system such as a national economy and say that small differences in that measure is statistically significant - yet that is exactly what you did. AF, You're betraying your ignorance of statistical methods. Let's go back to basics to make this simple. Your assertion was that the Reagan tax cuts led to higher economic growth in the U.S. GDP growth rate is THE universally acknowledged general measure of economic performance. It is used as the measuring stick for determining whether or not we are in a recession. In short, it is the report card for the economy. Are you actually saying that the gold standard measure of national economic health (GDP growth rate) is inadequate to measure the beneficial effects of the Reagan tax cuts???? If so, it is not the measure that is inadequate--it is your claim because you are in effect saying it cannot be proven with data. By lumping in additional measurements over very long time periods, you masked the effect that tax rate reductions actually had on the economy because you introduced more variation not related to tax rate cuts. Then you declared that there is no evidence that the tax rate cuts had much of an impact. Incredible! My analysis is more valid statistically. Again, no understanding of statistical methods on display here. Statistical experts always prefer more data to less. Please explain what variation was introduced by analyzing the effect of going from a 10-year period at a 70% top tax rate to a 10-year period at a 50% rate? If the economic data supported your claim (i.e. if your claim was statistically valid) it should be easier to prove over a long period of time than a short period of time because the effects of random variation tend to cancel out over longer periods. The health of the economy does not lend itself to a simple statisticfal analysis of a single variable. Over multiple threads, I have demonstrated the positive impact that Reagan's policies (tax cuts included) had on the national economy by listing the interest rates, unemployment rates, inflation rates, and now the GDP growth rates that he inherited from Carter and the rates that followed his tax policy changes. You focused on a single measure and you blurred Reagan's influence by lumping his two terms in with the GDP rates of later presidents. First, it looks to me that you just want to muddy the waters by suggesting the use of subordinate metrics instead of the top-line standard metric for national economic growth, GDP growth rate. What you are suggesting is like ignoring the score of the ball game and focusing on which team had more first downs, yards gained, and a higher quarterback rating. Nice try, though. :lol: Second, this is about tax cuts and their efficacy, not who is sitting in the oval office. Are you afraid that if we look beyond the eight years of the Reagan presidency, your case for the tax cuts falls apart? If the cuts were as effective as you claim, their benefits should persist through multiple presidencies. A statistician would find my analysis of four economic measures that include only the years from the Reagan presidency more statistically valid than your's. At least a nonpartisan statistician would. Oh, there it is. I should have expected it. Yawn. Can't win the argument with substance, so the ad hominem attack becomes the weapon of choice. Edited June 16, 200818 yr by H
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.