American food is about to get a lot healthier

[Bauce]

[eynon81]

[Bauce]

[dontworrybehappy]

[Spider]

[dontworrybehappy]

[The Comrade]

do you intentionally respond to threads after they die so there's no one to call you out any longer?

anyways, most of what you said is wrong. i'll get around to showing it tomorrow.

[dontworrybehappy]

And between now and then you'll pray this thread disappears because you can't dispute the evidence presented!

And yes, when faulty information is posted, I don't care if YOU consider the thread "dead" or not (I sure didn't think a thread was considered dead in 12 days) I will correct the misinformation. Presenting numbers without explanations is akin to saying riding a motorcycle is much safer than driving a car because far fewer people die on motorcycles in this country than die in car wrecks. Raw numbers would certainly make it APPEAR that way, until you delve deeper.

[The Comrade]

[dontworrybehappy]

CBO is definitely not reliable. They only spit out numbers from information given to them by guessers. They also said Obamacare would cost 900 million, now they're at 2.7 trillion. I would definitely not trust the CBO, in fact, that's a laughable source. The fact that your chart comes from CBO numbers renders it useless except to check a computer monitors ability to display a pretty bar graph.

Had you bothered to actually read the site and not just look at the chart, you'd see that he gladly gave his sources for information.

This "guy you don't know" didn't make the numbers, he only analyzed them. And he used real numbers, not CBO estimates. Give the CBO faulty or limited data, they spit out faulty or limited numbers. You should know this. They have a history of bias, and more of just being wrong because they can't predict future changes, they assume everything remains the same, which it never does.

A study showing them being very flawed:

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/sc ... s_sdt=0,33