I agree. I saw the data in old printed format in the early nineties, and the trend was pretty stable. Regardless of who was in charge, spending just kept going up. Given that Clinton had a Republican congress for much of his term, Reagan had a mixed congress, as did Bush, my bet is there isn't much of a correlation.
I have a mathematics background, an interest in science, and an unapologetic impatience for sloppy thinking. This puts me at odds with both right and left. It's high time the rational scientific viewpoint got the rabid proponent it deserves. I fight nonsense so the scientists don't have to. The blog is not necessarily about science, but rather is a scientific view of the world. Rational, civilly expressed, factually supported thought-out opposing views are welcome. Disparaging, irrational, intentionally obtuse, troll-like whack-a-mole, quote-mining posts will be dispatched without hesitation or apology, as will tit-for-tat partisan "the other side does it too" political gamesmanship, and opinions of what topics I should be writing about. We don't do that here.
2 comments:
It would be interesting to see a graph like that but showing which party controlled congress.
I agree. I saw the data in old printed format in the early nineties, and the trend was pretty stable. Regardless of who was in charge, spending just kept going up. Given that Clinton had a Republican congress for much of his term, Reagan had a mixed congress, as did Bush, my bet is there isn't much of a correlation.
Post a Comment