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: Alighieri who wrote (613810)	5/30/2011 12:35:58 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576627

You have to give them credit...they have managed to convince the country that the dems are responsible for the debt...yet from reagan to bush II the reps have managed to rack up the lion share of it with seductive lies about tax cuts... You simply cannot grasp it. You just DO NOT understand the most basic elements of accounting or finance, and certainly not of fiscal policy or the budget. The problem has nothing to do with Bush II. The problem is a direct result of two failed social programs: Medicare and Social Security -- both Democrat initiatives. If you want to blame Bush for a few trillion, fine -- he DID provide the prescription drug program for seniors -- which has come in under budget every year until now, before Democrats unilaterally modified it to SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE ENTITLEMENT. If you're going to blame Bush for ALL of Medicare Part D, you MUST blame FDR and and LBJ for ALL of SS and Medicare, respectively, which totally blows your theory that Republicans are in any way responsible for our current predicament. One other point that liberals so often are confused on is the Bush tax cuts which Obama just extended. Even if one assumes SOME of that would have been net revenue, it is certainly not reasonable to assume that ALL of it would have been, or even half. Because we cannot know how much worse the Clinton recession and the post-9/11 economy would have been for those years had the tax cuts NOT happened. It is safe, however, to recognize that the tax cuts materially improved the economy during this period, and as a result, generated more revenue that what would otherwise have been collect. Tim posted this yesterday and perhaps it is simple enough for you. youtube.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (613810)	5/31/2011 11:54:53 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576627

Over the last decade (2001-2010) spending has increased by more than the size of the deficit. Spending increases account for 115 percent or so of the deficit, so its not true that tax cuts are responsible for the lions share. If you want to blame Bush, well he has a large share of the responsibility for that huge spending increase. (Much of it was for entitlements that where passed before he was in office, but he didn't try to reign in Medicare, instead adding Part D, he also made no serious effort to reform Medicaid, and he failed to do anything about Social Security). The blame for that increase isn't all on Bush, the congress at the time, the congresses and presidents when the entitlement programs became law, and at the end of the decade Obama, all share blame, but a big chunk does go to Bush. The tax cuts, even if you use static analysis which probably overstates the case by 40 or 50 percent) where small in comparison to the spending increases, so if you want to blame Bush you should blame him for being a big spender.