BO, did you read the source of your chart?

The bottom of the chart says "CBPP analysis based on Congressional Budget Office estimates."

Now you may be wondering what the significance of that is. Well let me tell you.

The Congressional Budget Office is an organization that helps calculate the cost of legislation. Now I'm sure you know this; but the part you seem to not understand is that the CBO does not check the assumptions of the budgets / legislation; they just do the number crunching based on your assumptions.

So for example; I could create a budget; that says if we lower taxes by 50% and sell a turkey sandwich to China for 20 trillion that we will have a massive surplus. The CBO will create nice charts explaining what the future projections look like under those assumptions.

Now lets look at the CBPP, who is the think tank that created the assumptions.

Here is the New York times: "According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance (Soros funded). According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.""

Relax dead, the data is the correct data until 2011 at which point it expands the trends.

It is probably a good idea to do the due diligence when researching where your statistics come from. Trust me the banks / hedge funds you end up working for in future will not accept this form of shoddy research.

Due diligence should be your middle name if you plan on being successful in finance.

Relax? Did I use caps or something?

BO: "Relax dead, the data is the correct data until 2011 at which point it expands the trends."

Maybe you aren't getting my point. The whole chart is based on assumptions.

Call me stupid; but I'm probably not going to get my information about Bush from a man (George Soros) who has previously stated that he would do anything to destroy Bush.

Just like; it would be stupid to show charts (probably in crayon) from Sean Hannity.

deadcode, the data up to 2011 represents our past and current monetary state. This is correct 100 percent! What assumptions do you make when you collect data? You just see how much we spend in each sector each year and record this, place it on the chart and vola!

Ya, sure you make calculations that assume certain things, say the initial debt that you have and the policies that will/could be in effect over this time (maybe Bush tax cut will be permanent! or something like this).

My point is, the projections after 2011 are actually assumptions needed to solve the equations (ordinary/partial differential equations) that predict what this chart shows us and I am sure if you did the math you would agree.

BO, I made my point.

Posting with your alias is not going to make it look like there is more support for your argument.

The chart is based on assumptions; it is a fact; the assumptions are created by the CBPP.

Neither you or I can see any of the assumptions because it is just a chart. I know your standard of fact is pretty low when it comes to things you agree with. So all that was necessary was that the chart backed up your worldview (and probably because it was colorful).

major alt fail, last evidence I needed

Um, Jurgen, that was vash talking me; that wasn't Boner Oiler Alt; check IP; you have me major-ally mistaken right now. seriously.