SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bearcatbob who wrote (8872)6/3/2009 3:50:06 PM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 86356
 
It really depends on whether you believe the gov't should have not done anything at all as our economy fell off the cliff. Bush was warned by all the leading economists that he needed to act and act fast in early to mid 2008. He waited and did nothing until the end of 2008. We have seen the result, since the economy fell off the cliff on Bush's watch. Obama acted the minute he had power on Jan 20th.

So if you think that we should have done nothing, then I can see how you hate the Obama deficits. But then that also means that you think it was somehow ok for stock markets to lose 50% of their value and for our economy to collapse sending unemployment to 9%.

If you think that was not ok, then the Obama deficits are understandable, because he prevented a further precipitous slide. We're already seeing the virtuous effects on the economy. The slide has been reversed.

I'm less worried about temporary, one time recovery packages, than I am worried about fixed entitlement spending, which represents the bulk of the deficits going forward, and which are not really Obama's fault. Those are legislative issues that require Congress to enact structural changes to our laws to correct. So it would be more accurate to blame the Democratic Congress for these deficits caused by the acceleration of entitlement spending and for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. It's now in their hands to fix. Let's see if they do.