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 (532024)	11/23/2009 6:03:28 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574772

The Bush wars were the first wars we've ever fought without taxes being raised to pay for them. No (R)'s complained.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (532024)	11/23/2009 6:05:10 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1574772

800 billion a year in interest payments by the year 2019

To: RetiredNow who wrote (532024)	11/24/2009 1:52:40 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574772

I'd call all the extra spending when Bush was president (and its not just the wars and the drug program, even dropping those issues, and also drop all homeland security spending, and spending would still have increased a lot, and of course we can't drop them, that money was actually spent) But the taxes aren't spending, the wars are temporary, and some drug program was almost certain to happen whoever was president or whichever party controlled congress. That doesn't let Bush off the hook even on that one aspect. "The other guy would have done it too, doesn't mean you didn't do it, or don't get blame for it. But now instead of reducing federal medical spending, the plan is to pile up the spending even more. However, would you call GOP actions to cut taxes twice, passing a Prescription drug plan, and fighting two simultaneous wars a good example of fiscal discipline? Of course not. Complaining about a lack of discipline now, isn't claiming that we recently did have it. Recognizing we didn't have it recently isn't an argument against having it now. Actually the fact that spending and budget balances have been so bad recently increases the need for discipline now. If Bush+congress had controlled spending than Obama and congress going overboard now wouldn't be quite so bad. It seems the Democrats now are pushing a reverse of the old starve the beast strategy. I've heard it called "gorge the beast", their going to spend and spend partially to make durable tax cuts seem irresponsible or even impossible to many.