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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (532720)	11/25/2009 4:10:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574493

No the source doesn't determine if something is true or not, sources that are normally the best can make mistakes or dishonest statements, or have one valid interpretation when others are equally valid. Sources that are normally bad, can be 100% correct. The CBO shows a surplus, according to the CBO's definition/interpretation of what a surplus means. That interpretation is a perfectly valid one, and in fact its the one I'm more inclined to use myself. But the other is also equally valid. Total federal debt increased every year, by that definition there was no surplus. OTOH debt to the public went down a bit, by that definition there was a surplus. Personally I'd say there was a surplus, but the alternative framing does no show ignorance as you claimed. (OTOH that goes both ways, I believe those who disagree with you are saying the interpretation you favor shows ignorance. If that's the case they are also wrong, but perhaps their responding just to the point that you seem to ignore the existence or validity of the other interpretation as a sign of ignorance rather than the fact that you hold to the particular interpretation that you do.)