Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alighieri who wrote (701481)	2/28/2013 11:04:06 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 1576166

>> Under what revenue projections? Certainly not after the collapse of revenue that took place late in 2008...furthermore you'd have Obama come into office and find 9% contraction the prior quarter and near financial collapse and cut the budget to reduce the dynamic deficit he found? Ridiculous...we'd have had a depression for sure. What you state here is incredibly disingenuous... First, my post responded to CJ who said: "I guess you don't know that the first year every president operates under a budget from the previous administration..." The problem is that Obama did not maintain the budget that was enacted under Bush. Total revenue for the FULL YEAR came in 600B below the budgeted amount. And expenses came in $400B over, which is the reason the deficit was a trillion higher than the Bush budget. But if anyone is being disingenuous it is you. Bush left the presidency 4 months into the year yet you want to blame HIM for a revenue shortfall that occurred AFTER he left office. Sorry, but that's not on Bush. And the same is true of expenses. Obama didn't change the budget signed, yet the deficit in 2009 exceeded 1.4B...since ARRA accounted for 300B in 2009...this statement is simply untrue. So clearly the CBO (assuming they made the statement you claim) was wrong. When did the CBO make this statement? You're right -- that was a misstatement. Clearly, the remark should have been "half of the increase in expenditures" not "half the deficit". But the point is that you cannot blame Bush for a revenue shortfall when he wasn't in office for eight of the 12 months. That's just absurd. Even if you wanted to charge him with 1/3 of it that would be a reasonable approach, but no one who understands financial data would suggest what you are, which is that Bush should be charged with a deficit with which he basically had no involvement. But none of this matters from any practical perspective. Because surely, no rational person can blame Bush for the deficits that occurred in the ensuring four years. After 8 years of 300B-400B deficits (even as the nation was in two wars) Obama takes office and suddenly deficits shot up to 1.4 Trillion. And you want to blame Bush? If Obama didn't want those deficits he should have cut spending. But no. IN fact, these fools haven't even passed a budget while he was in office. Al, your position is totally indefensible. These are Obama deficits and will be forever.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next