You love to repeat this nonsense, MR. And that's exactly what it is.
As has been noted, that data is
SOURCED from NBER and the Fed. It's all very easily accessible. All that's in there is the ending dates for recessions (NBER) and percentage change in total gubmint spending over the following five years (STFRED).
Are you saying that
Mother Jones has somehow fabricated or altered the data? Are there "other" recessions that occurred over the past thirty-five years that you suspect have been left out of the analysis? I used to get into this with Conservative, and yer just making a complete fool of yerself.
Btw, "irreputable" is
archaic at best. I'd recommend "disreputable."
The same worthless crap over and over.
No, we
all understand it. And those of us who can reason are able to understand that you can't just say "cherry-picked" and win an argument. What the eff is cherry-picked about it? Absolutely nothing, that's what. If you wanna say it is, then show us how. Otherwise, you lose and lose big.
>>Liberals and the far right both believe that if they present their cherry picked facts then it automatically proves their case. Not so.
You believe you can say "cherry-picked" and automatically dismiss an argument. Not so, if you expect to win the debate.
>>Anyone who uses Mother Jones as a source is just showing their prejudiced partisan bias right up front and also shows they are not interested in anything but their own agenda. Now we finally know where John gets his "facts" from.
This is so pathetically weak I almost feel sorry for you.
What the hell does that mean? The data is IN THE FRIGGIN' CHART. It's sourced. What do mean "arrive at the numbers"? NBER and STFRED did that.
>>There is literally no way to examine it without engaging in extensive research yourself.
Well then I guess I'm one hell of a researcher (I'm pretty good, actually ☺ ), cuz I can "examine it" very easily.
Very easily.
Here it is:
View attachment 67205462
The chart published by
MJ has cumulative totals for the percentage change in spending, but you can clearly see that the increases following the GOP SSE Great Recession that ended Jun 2009 are substantially less than they were in the years following the previous three downturns.
I'd say the way to
properly question the validity of the argument offered in the article is to point to the very large increases in Q2 2008 and Q2 2009. A counter to that would be to note the very large
drops in spending Q3 and Q4 2008, which more or less balance those out.
>>per capita inflation adjusted is a lot different from actual dollars inflation adjusted, for instance.
Yes it is, and it's more informative to use per capita spending because it adjusts for the increase in population over recent decades. You have a problem with that?
Of course it was the housing bubble that got the deficit down to 1.1% of GDP in 2007, so the fact that a severe recession followed isn't something you can simply write off as an unfortunate development — it was basically inevitable.