I bet you got dressed in the basement after that.

I think it's funny that the Republicans are represented by pink. Not that I care, but because I know they do.

is the house control part of the graphic correct toward the later part of the axis?

looks wrong to me

Here are a couple interesting, if not frightening from yesterday's MJ show.
This link will take you to their page. I couldn't find the video of the segment on youtube.

First graph ... defense, discretionary and other mandatory will flatline for 30 years? :eyebrow: :headshake
It is worth noting that the biggest consistent increase is in health care. In fact, if you spent less on that, it might cut back the social security obligations a bit too. :bolt:

Second graph ... incomprehensible. What is the vertical axis? What was at zero in 2008?

Go to the link ZG ...
The first graph - These are current projections as a % of GDP.
The second graph is employment change from 2008. Based upon employment in 2008. Thats why its at 0.

I find those projections to be highly implausible.

Okay, thanks, that makes some sense, at least.

Government spending vs Unemployment

oops - from here admittedly biased source, but if the numbers are correct, it is an interesting trend.

It would be interesting to see those two parameters plotted against each other.

From the link:
Maybe cars have just gotten so much better that they don't need to be replaced every three to five years.

There doesn't appear to be a consistent leader between the two, so I would guess that neither causes the other; they are correllated because they are both related to the strength of the economy in general.

Well, rising unemployment can lead to government stimulus packages, which would explain the correlation in 2008-2010. Man, those lines got ugly there, didn't they?

Can't get the pics out, but a good look at a couple more.
I'm in this BIG EFFIN RED area with a few other dwellars.

27+ weeks 45.9% Gah!

Wall Street Journal