To: Harlequin
Astonishing, indeed...
7 posted on
08/01/2003 6:18:40 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: AntiGuv
I don't know what that table is meant to portray, but I think it's very misleading to compare actual "discretionary % change" with proposed "deiscretionary % change through 2004" without providing further background.
A percent change from what? I wouldn't expect the difference in "discretionary spending" from say, 1980 to 1984 to be the same as between "2001 and projected 2004" because the world is different today.
Bogus and meaningless chart.
22 posted on
08/01/2003 6:35:14 PM PDT by
Mudbug
To: AntiGuv
Misleading lies follow:
![]()
146 posted on
08/01/2003 8:12:14 PM PDT by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: AntiGuv
[Cato]:
3 year % change in Real Discretionary Spending During Reagan and Bush's Firsts TermsWhat does a "3 year % change".... in a first term mean?
Why not go with simply the % change in the first term?
204 posted on
08/01/2003 9:37:13 PM PDT by
FreeReign
(V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
To: AntiGuv
So, the only place where he kept down the spending was Science, Space & Technology ? Are you sure they got this right?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson