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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (28394)	9/22/2012 4:04:42 PM
From: research1234	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Agree that social spending over the past decade added to deficits, and of course that means that Bush deserves much of the blame for that. But you cannot argue with any logical consistency that the war spending and Bush tax cuts are not the primary driver of our current deficits. Fact is that if Bush tax cuts had not been enacted and his wars had not been entered into, the size of the deficit would be much smaller and maybe even not worth arguing about. Its all about the size of the federal government. It has grown over the past 50 years under both parties because it provides services that people want. Taxes are the means to pay for these services. Cutting taxes by as much as the Bush cuts did without cutting spending was completely irresponsible. And entering into wars without any plans to pay for them was even more irresponsible. I don't see how the Republican brand can survive that kind of absurd behaviour.