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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (465894)	3/23/2009 7:06:10 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574129

SD, > Considering the size of the deficits he inherited and the rate at which the economy is contracting, yes. You're just repeating yourself and ignoring Obama's own projections of trillion dollar deficits even during future economic expansion. Tenchusatsu

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (465894)	3/23/2009 7:11:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574129

>> Considering the size of the deficits he inherited and the rate at which the economy is contracting, yes. What is with this argument? It is so obviously absurd I don't know how you guys came up with it. You can't claim to have "inherited" a deficit if YOU increased spending after you got here. It doesn't work that way. Obama is spending the money, NOT Bush. It is Obama's economy now, NOT Bush's. BUSH NEVER PRODUCED A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. NEVER. Yet, Obama has proposed a string of TEN YEARS at a trillion a year. And frankly, it is going to be worse than even CBO has claimed. This is the height of revisionism. Just atrocious. If you want deficit spending, fine. But blame it on your own sorry assed president.