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: TimF who wrote (493798)	7/9/2009 4:00:23 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572472

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. Tim This entire argument by the Left is nonsense. It wasn't "Bush" using slight of hand. It was a by-product of the way in which the appropriations were handled. To accept the claim that it was Bush slight of hand, one has to establish that the war funding was done through supplementals in order to keep the funds off-budget. Yet, there was broad bipartisan support for the legislation -- FOR EXAMPLE, IN MAY, 2007, THE SENATE VOTED 80-14 to pass the war supplemental. The true slight of hand is Obama's inclusion of these items in the budget, then calling a reduction of them "savings" over the coming ten years, when everyone presumed these amounts would decline anyway. The war funding should not be off-budget after the first year, for sure. All Congress has to do is to say, "Hey, Bush, give us a budget that has the cost of the war already in it". Problem solved. But for some reason, they didn't want to do that.