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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (530274)	11/18/2009 12:56:22 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1574386

"Bush's tax cuts were one half of a "stimulus" that fueled the growing economy of the past decade." Why did Bush's economy REQUIRE a "stimulus", post 9/11 trauma? All things considered, even with the permanent, deficit-causing tax cut "stimulus", the economy was unremarkable to poor. The stock market never really rose much beyond Clinton-era levels, in a DECADE, and ended far below where Clinton had left it.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (530274)	11/18/2009 11:08:13 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574386

You guys are parsing words and taking my words out of context. The context of my post was what's causing the deficits. Lowering taxes causes and spending more money increases deficits. So if you want to know how much Bush contributed to the deficits, you have to add up how much extra he spent and how much lower did he drive tax revenues. Ten, I know you aren't dumb and have enjoyed your posts, especially back in the years when I had voted for Bush Jr and was fully on your side of the aisle. So if you want to debate with me, please debate on the merits of the argument. Don't play the word parsing and semantic games that Tim likes to play. It's not worthy of you.