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: bentway who wrote (576355)	7/14/2010 11:22:18 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576660

That Obama line is getting way the hell up there.

To: bentway who wrote (576355)	7/15/2010 7:49:33 AM
From: Taro	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576660

So based on this chart your Ohbama is well on his way to become a new Truman, right?

To: bentway who wrote (576355)	8/18/2010 7:11:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576660

In addition to the point that your sources data reflects poorly on Obama, there is also the fact that its irrelevant to the point that you quote and pretend to respond to. Paying for tax cuts is an irrational concept since a tax cut is not a cost (it often, but not always, results in lower revenue to meet costs, but it isn't a cost itself). Your chart doesn't address that issue at all. It doesn't even address tax cuts much at all. The main reason for the growth in the debt, is all the extra spending. If spending had kept steady, allowing for adjustments for inflation and population, from 1950, from 1960, from 1970, from 1980, from 1990, or even from 2000 (or any of the years in between), then we wouldn't have a deficit we would have a surplus. But Bush, Obama, and congress (esp under Democratic control, but also when it was controlled by Republicans) have increased spending like crazy for the last decade, and so we have monster deficits.