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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (60115)	4/19/2008 7:24:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542970

Then let's hope you paid attention to this "more useful" indicator. LOL. You just finished a crocodile apology for the tempest and then turn around and serve it up to me. I passed on it the first time because it wasn't pivotal, not from my perspective anyway, and I didn't want to be distracted. I try hard to stay on point. As for your indicators... While the debt information is no less extraneous than that appearing on the chart, the array is less offensive to my delicate analytical senses than that trend line so that's an improvement. The simple totals, while still not relevant to the issue on the table, are at least good information. And they substantiate my primary point, which is always nice, but I didn't want to post a response just to rub that in. <g> The average deficits are on point, the primary point, and also good information although not dispositive re the point about the table. The surplus count was most interesting to me. I was unaware of the exact number. Too few data points from which to draw conclusions but relevant. So thanks for that. It appears to correlate with the other graph...the useless...er...."lame" one Well, yeah, but not in a useful way. There was never any question that I know of the the Reps of late have run up bigger deficits and the Dems have had some surpluses so that's a big "so what?". As for the correlation, it would have correlated better had it used the same time frame. Some of the larger spending come before the last forty years, not that it would have affected the bottom line, only that correlation would have been tighter. Also, I didn't know that such a site existed so that was news I might be able to use.