legal mumbo-jumbo

What do you think? Do you think that of the two parties in an argument about money, in which one party disputed the wisdom of saving versus spending, and the other party -- the pro-saving party -- was HERSELF accused of being a poor saver, and was thereby provoked and incited to apply the term "jackass" to her chosen life partner...

In a case such as this, who do you think owes whom an apology?

Party the First, who asserts that putting money in an interest-bearing account in an established financial institution, such as a bank, is an unproven scheme of debatable, if not scurrilous returns?

or Party the Second, whose assertion of the basic jackassery of Party the First remains visibly supported by all present evidence?