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 (656306)	5/23/2012 8:09:27 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1579760

>> yet Bush contributed more to the debt that all of the other administrations combined. True, until Obama who, if given another four years will eclipse Bush and all others. However, Bush dealt with more difficult issues during his presidency than any president since FDR -- the 9/11 attacks, two ensuing wars, massive ramping up homeland security and military costs, Katrina, and nearly a billion in cash flow loans/TARP (mostly repaid, but due to an accounting gimmick, Obama was credited with those repayments). However, I will once again point out that we wouldn't have an unmanageable national debt problem if it were only $15 trillion. The big problem is the $100 Trillion or more in unfunded liabilities of SS, Medicare, and unfunded pension liabilities, plus the massive unfunded mandates that have been dumped on the states by Obamacare. >> He influenced our economic policy for over 3 decades. Instead of everyone benefiting from economic growth, it has resulted in the stagnation of wages for the vast majority of Americans. And it led to the near economic collapse of a couple of years ago.Not only that, similar things have happened in nearly every country that has adopted his policies. The rich get richer and everyone else gets an every decreasing percentage of the economy. I was thinking of something a tad more specific. >> Long term? No. But short term? Guess it depends on what you call "long-term", but our structural fiscal crisis is definitely in the long-run at this point. While one can argue that Bush ran up the debt and shouldn't have, Obama took office saying he would cut the deficit in half and instead he has doubled it. >> Deficit spending results in an economic stimulus. But it is very short-term in nature, and the debt burden is long-term in nature. A fundamental premise of finance that is violated daily by our government. You don't finance consumption with long-term debt. Obama doesn't understand that. Perhaps Bush didn't. I have no doubt Romney does.