Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Perhaps instead of having another debate you should respond to criticisms of your misleading graphs?

Gray

The mantra they teach you, in any good statistics course, is, "correlation cannot be taken to imply causation." Choosing to ignore this rule tends to lead to dubious portrayals of the facts, like that shown above. It ignores external factors, such as the Eurozone Crisis. If all external factors were taken into account, the causal relationship between the stimulus and the unemployment rate could actually be the reverse of what the graphic above is trying to imply.

A man named Chad Stone wrote a good blog article on this subject, and he explains it better than I could. He is the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Here is an excerpt from his article on the stimulus:

The truth is that, although the stimulus did not produce an economic miracle, I don't think it was billed as such. It was originally billed as a necessary measure to soften a serious economic crisis.

I have heard a lot of negative claims being made about Barack Obama's policies and their effects. On closer investigation, I have found the majority of these claims to be based on seriously skewed facts at best, more often than not outright fabrication. In reality, Obama's policies have actually been fairly effective.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

I'd be willing to debate you with different debate parameters such as

• no misleading graphs;
• show your math;
• identify primary sources of numbers, not intermediate sources;
• you take the position that Obama's Presidency is a failure because that's what you're really saying and I would simply argue against your posts;
• Three rounds and you'd have to start because I would have to continue debunking the misleading figures every round.