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: combjelly who wrote (635994)	11/13/2011 9:35:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578813

"War spending had nothing, AT ALL, to do with this. Hell, it was a trillion over 10 years -- that's 100B/year." Dave, that trillion was out of the $7 trillion that Bush ran up during his tenure. That is a fair fraction. Claiming that it was insignificant is, well, sort of stupid. The discussion was not about Bush's debt increases. It was about Obama's. And to suggest that war spending is a significant fraction of Obama's massive deficits is just, well, stupid. The Obama deficits are a direct result of a big spending, unlimited government mentality. The war spending is a part of it, but if you eliminated the war spending we would STILL be looking at deficits that are far beyond what Bush was running. In fact, the Left chronically points to the wars and Part D as the cause of the debt increase under Bush, when combined it amounts to something in the area of 1/4 of it, with most of the balance caused by entitlement spending that is out of control (one exception is the $700B TARP program, which due to an accounting anomaly, was charged against Bush and credited to Obama -- essentially, an Obama "freebie" at Bush's expense). A rational view of Bush vs. Obama debt reflects an unprecedented increase in wasteful government spending under Obama.