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: Road Walker who wrote (493796)	7/9/2009 3:37:19 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572405

>> Which you edited by selection. The wars are a drop in the bucket. And you know that. The cost of the wars has been something like $100B/year. Obama spent far more on the stimulus that didn't work than what has been spent on both wars since 2002. And furthermore, a great deal of that war expense has made its way back into our economy by virtue of being expenditures for wages and materiel. This is a totally bogus argument.

To: Road Walker who wrote (493796)	7/9/2009 3:37:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572405

In the context of the whole conversation, whether or not Bush used slight of hand for future budget projections doesn't matter much, since the conversation was about comparing actual Bush deficits with projected Obama deficits. Also Bush was as likely to use slight of hand to show larger projected future deficits (so he could claim he "shrunk the deficit", when realistically he did no such thing. Obama's also using slight of hand, in his projections, that's pretty normal. I would consider the CBO projections more reasonable, but really no projection will be very solid. The only thing we know for sure is that we are in for very large deficits for years to come.