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: i-node who wrote (544245)	1/16/2010 10:40:12 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1575427

That's not true. The budget deficit trajectory stood at $1.3 trillion when Bush left office. What that means is that it didn't matter who took office in the first year, they were already slated to spend $1.3 trillion in excess of the budget. Part of what was obscuring the budget deficit is that Bush never included the cost of the wars in his deficit projects and Obama changed that, which is why Obama's deficits look larger. Nice sleight of hand by Bush, but it didn't fool the more educated of the American populace. Also, your math is off. The TARP alone cost $700B. That was Bush's baby. And Bush put absolutely zero controls in place on it, which Paulson went to town with. Under Obama, they put strict controls on it and now they looking to keep that spending down below $200B. That's fiscal responsibility, at least on a narrow scope item, without forgiving him for the bigger picture.