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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (16836)	4/13/2010 8:16:12 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Bush engaged in two wars without paying for them. They where paid for or not paid for in the same way as every other program when we have a deficit is paid or not paid for (or more correctly paid for partially with borrowed money). The amount Obama has spent in the last year is minuscule to the total Bush spent over his 8 years. I wouldn't call $3.55 trillion minuscule compared to $20.37 tril. (even though its clearly smaller), the larger number is less than 6 times as much (and that putting all of FY 2009 on Bush, but Obama with congress did increase what was spent for that fiscal year). "Small" fits (as it would for any, or at least almost any, consecutive American presidents when your comparing one year to two terms, "tiny" or "minuscule" not so much. But the more important point is the it isn't very relevant. Obama's spending more per year now than Bush did in any year, and its only going to increase. The 2011 spending request is for $3.83 tril. Possibly actual 2011 spending (and if not 2012) will be $4tril or more. Also the entitlements drive a lot of future spending. Obamacare entails much more spending than Part D (and also increases Part D spending by removing the "doughnut hole").