Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (159621)	11/6/2003 11:31:53 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 164684

Just eye-balling the chart, it looks like per capita spending rose in Reagan's first term (defense spending, probably) and peaked and then fell again in his second, rose again in Bush 41's term (defense and interest?), and was flat to slightly down in Clinton's first term, but up again in his second. Remember, the chart ends with 2001 numbers - Clinton's last budget. Anyway, it's hard to draw conclusions without knowing the relative growth or declines of components of spending during those periods. Clinton, for example, likely benefited from lower interest costs on the national debt (compared to rates during the Reagan and Bush admins). I think we need to look deeper, but thanks - it's interesting.