Douglas Adams has said, "Anything that happens, happens. Anything that in happening causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that in happening happens again, happens again. Though not necessarily in that order."
-- Mostly Harmless

BAA Boy says, “Do you still claim revenues are down?”

Not so fast, BAA. Please reread the 50 plus comments on your Rock’n’Roll article, Ewe won’t find anyone arguing that tax receipts “are down” - not one!

BAA Boy says, “But the question originally was ‘how is the economy doing‘. I said it was ‘Rocking and Rolling’.”

In the Rock’n’Roll article, Ewe used all manner of unsubstantiated data to support your premise. In Let’s Talk Numbers, Ewe use but one criterion, tax receipts. In the earlier article, there’s not one comment disputing any of the data, and I doubt that anyone will question the CBO tax receipt information presented in Numbers.

Aye, then, where’s the rub? It has to be in the interpretation of the data and I can readily identify three sources of the disagreement.

1. Here’s an example of what Bob has called your tautological logic:

RE: “That’s where I think many on the other side gets bogged down, and I can understand it. I didn’t like anything that came out of the Clinton administration, even before the scandals. Many of you felt the same about Bush and his running of things, even before the scandals. So we have ourselves a little stare down each and every day here until someone thinks they got the other to blink, but we never do.”

At the onset of your analysis, Ewe may take into account your subjective evaluation of the president’s economic policies and performance - he’s a fighter, not a lover; he’s a Conservative, not a Liberal; the economy is doing well; two legs bad, four legs good; whatever - but no one else does because that compromises the objectivity of the scientific method.

I thought we were evaluating the data, indicators of the factual outcomes and conditions, to arrive at a conclusion about the economy.  Now, I see - Ewe reverse the process - Ewe begin with an assumption that the economy is sound, then set out to find the data that will substantiate it.  Hmmmm...

In the staredown, your unflinching gaze may be related to the self-satisfied feeling that you’ve put down another assault on your hero but, believe me, those returning your stare are really dumbstruck that your adoration of Bush (or hatred of Clinton) can so corrupt your analysis and interpretation of the facts. 

2. Issue identification

Ewe focus on recent economic data to conclude the economy is Rockin’ (thereby “proving”, somehow, Bush’s policies are good for the economy). The majority of the disagreement in Rock'n'Roll comes from your myopic analysis. Ewe limit your analysis and conclusions to current economic conditions, thereby excluding any implication for the future.

Relevant questions that were raised: Is the economy healthy? Is the economy stable? Is it headed in the right direction? Are Americans better off today than a year ago?  Is the stage set to be better off tomorrow? In two years? In five years?  

MoronInCharge summarized the point, observing that the economic picture was rosy the day before the market crashed in 1929.

Bob pointed out structural instabilities in the economy induced by chronic deficit spending. Ewe ignored it.  Bella and Free Thinker spoke of unemployment and job losses.  AZ Moderate and JustJoan discussed the downside of easy consumer credit in a mini-series some time ago. Ewe ignored all that. Nearly everyone commenting on the Rock’n’Roll article spoke of the opportunity costs incurred in arriving at our purported current prosperity. Ewe ignored that, too.

In your enthusiasm to tout Bush’s economic performance, Ewe used such a narrow and ill-defined criterion that Ewe ignored reality.

3. Data Identification

RE: Here Ewe write: “When I wrote the “Rocking and Rolling” article I was pulling a good deal of it from one source, my mind. …I write off the top of my head most times and with conviction.”

RE: In Rock‘n‘Roll, Ewe write: “All my numbers came from official Government sites and not from right or left wing sites. There are too many to link to. A little research will do you all good anyway if you care to find it“.

Regardless of source, the data used in both articles, like the identification of issues, has been selected to prove your contention that the economy is sound. Quite simply, this is intellectual dishonesty!

Ewe are dishonest from beginning to end - from the drafting of the article to ignoring the chorus of writers who present relevant considerations critical to any objective assessment of the economy.

“Writing off the top of my head, with conviction” doesn’t cut it BAA. It’s dishonest. Ewe begin with a premise, set out to prove it and ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Whether the data comes from your head or from a lower part of your anatomy isn’t clear - it’s selective and biased toward the conclusion you want to reach, that’s for sure!  And, that's a dishonest assessment. 

Errors of Commission

So much for logical errors of omission. In both articles, Ewe slip in Bush’s tax cuts as determinants of purported prosperity.

RE: Rock’n’Roll: “OH that reminds me, let's lok [sic] at what those tax cuts of Bush's actually did to the Treasury (think U.S.A.'s national checking account). Let's look at this simple chart... “

RE: Numbers: “But the question originally was “how is the economy doing”. I said it was “Rocking and Rolling” I would say the tax cuts increased revenue; well I wouldn’t say that, the CBO sure does though."

Need I point out that nowhere in Numbers do Ewe cite a CBO source stating that Bush’s tax cuts are in any way related to the tax revenue data Ewe present?

In fact, in Free Lunch and Sunspot Theory, I’ve noted that the CBO has published a study that demonstrates tax cuts could NOT be behind the increased tax receipts.

Another error of Omission? Certainly more dishonesty. I guess the explanation for your sorry performance is found in your statement:

“But trust is the key component here. I don’t trust the liberal establishment. You don’t trust much of the conservative establishment; we can both throw around facts supporting our arguments; in the end trust is all we have.”

Playing fast and loose with facts to prove a preconceived, fallacious point reminds me of the adage that figures can lie and liars can figure. I taught my children it’s unacceptable to be dishonest and lie.  Apparently, Ewe feel otherwise.  That’s certainly your right.  However, don’t speak to me of trust. Ewe confuse blind faith with trust.

Sheep are so easily led.  Is that why they expect others will follow them...