Comment: The first link there

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Virgil Goode 2012 (see in situ)

The first link there

The market-ticker article is one I was discussing earlier with someone. Take a closer look. His first argument assumes that the CPI is an accurate measure of inflation, and it clearly is not; in fact in another article he blasts the MSM for assuming that the CPI is accurate. It understates inflation, which makes his using it as a benchmark bogus. But he also omits the context for the claim he's looking at, namely that the 5% annual budget under Johnson was down from a *ten* percent annual budget prior to that.

He then gives an argument in which he seems to be saying that the growing debt under Johnson's administration contradicts the claim that Johnson balanced the budget in his last year. But the claim is that when Johnson took office he had the existing debt *and* a deficit on the budget to deal with, and when he left the budget was balanced (zero deficit). So in spite of having a background that would make this unlikely the author seems to be confusing debt and deficit; given that there was a declining deficit that eventually reached zero, you would expect that the debt would be increasing but that the rate of increase would drop off. And this is in fact exactly what the graph in that article shows. (If he's making a different article about the deficit and the debt there, let me know, but I read it several times and the only thing that makes it coherent is a common sort of confusion about deficit vs debt.)

The Weinstein article is also an odd one for liberty-minded individuals to use, since Weinstein is clearly upset by Johnson not being neocon-friendly. He expresses concern that the deep military cuts that Johnson proposes would make it hard to launch large scale military operations. He also seems to think he's got Johnson in a trap when he gets him to admit that Iran isn't our enemy and there's no reason we should be trying to impose sanctions on them. He ends with a slam on Ron Paul, which isn't surprising since he's got a history of smear attacks against Ron Paul, newsletters and all. This is nothing but a neocon upset by someone advocating foreign policies that make neocons look foolish and dangerous.

I'm just saying that if there's a case to be made against Johnson, why can't it be made without smear tactics and bogus arguments like those?