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: RetiredNow who wrote (529835)	11/17/2009 1:52:52 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574098

BS the tax cuts brought in more tax revenues, ask the Gov of NY about increasing taxes

To: RetiredNow who wrote (529835)	11/17/2009 2:06:54 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574098

>> The Bush tax cuts cost this country $2.5 trillion from 2001-2010. An utterly ridiculous claim that could only be arrived with a highly biased analysis. Unfortunately, my sense is you don't understand the issues well enough to identify such an analysis. >> Bush's two wars have cost this country $1 trillion to date. We know the cost and it isn't a trillion. However, the cost of war should never be a consideration in whether one goes to war, unless you simply can't finance a win, in which case the war can't be fought. Otherwise, you spend what you have to. I refer you to FDR in WWII. >> Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Plan cost this country $600B through 2010 and will cost another $600 billion through 2015, for a total of $1.2 trillion. This, of course, is not correct and appears to be not even close. Every year Part D has come in substantially under budget and the trend doesn't appear to be letting up. For example, the 2009 cost has been estimated at 60% of the 2006 estimate, which makes four straight years the program has come under substantially under budget. Clearly, the most cost effective, successful government health care program ever attempted in this country. GWB did it. Not the liberals in Congress (and in fact, the legislation currently before Congress would destroy the fiscal sanity of Part D). If you want to argue about whether we should have had it at all, fine. But Obama is proposing massive new spending that makes Part D look like pocket change. Bush also gave cash away in his 2008 stimulus and that cost this country $168B. Anytime you cut taxes it is a good thing. But most importantly you have to acknowledge that the massive deficits we face today are not Obama's doing. That is an absurd claim. a) The Bush Tax cuts go away next year. How is Bush responsible for what happens after THAT? b) The Wars were off-budget for a reason (that is, you fight them whether you can have to borrow money or not). c) The Cost of Medicare Part D has ended up being about 1/4 the amount you suggested. But if Obama has his way those costs will skyrocket. d) Bush's "stimulus" was a one-time even. How does that affect future deficits? The bottom line is that you cannot explain Obama's 10 years of 1 trillion deficits other than by his massive big-government agenda.