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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (38980)	11/24/2009 1:45:48 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

If you discount the Heritage as unreliable then we should discount your analysis more. It is humorous to compare your bent for fiscal prudence while President Bush was in office with you being chief apologist for Obama deficits. Let me see if I follow your logic. Because the fix was in during President Bush's terms it is not a cost under Obama. Is that your logic? Additionally, you like the $851 Billion figure the CBO used for the period on ten years from now, but not the $1.8 Trillion the CBO used for the actual first ten years of the program. You are a laugh a minute. vast bulk (if not all of it) of these proposed changes are PAID for. And would thus not add to national debt. ROTFL I have some swamp land in to sell you. The savings are from a) eliminating a program that provides excellent benefits to millions of seniors which come in in under budget every year b) from fiscal prudence of the kind that requires an annual doctor fix and are thus completely and totally illusory. At least President Bush was honest about the cost over runs. Honesty seems to be a characteristic that is completely absent from Obama.