> The headline also seems to be factually incorrect. 69 v 70? If anyone wants to try and seriously use that as a debate point I wish them the best but don't li

> The headline also seems to be factually incorrect. 69 v 70? If anyone wants to try and seriously use that as a debate point I wish them the best but don't like their chances of landing a good rhetorical hit. And signs suggest it'll sound a hollow in 6 months at the rate the spending is chugging along. Also the headline is presumably correct. Gross interest would be higher than net.