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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (705198)	3/21/2013 2:57:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572921

But the economy was doing good back then. No, wait a minute. Bush was a disaster for the economy. No, wait a minute. It was great before it got bad. Then Bush screwed it up in2007. Damn, I'm all over the place aren't I? Let me think about this. Cj.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (705198)	3/21/2013 2:58:50 PM
From: steve harris	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572921

At least CJ is consistent. Europe's double digit unemployment is good, Bush's 5% unemployment is bad. Obama's trillion dollar deficits are good, Bush's 400B deficits are bad.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (705198)	3/21/2013 3:29:18 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1572921

>Bush's deficits never went above $400B. That represented about 3% of the GDP at the time. >Obama's deficits are above $1T. That represents about 6.7% of the GDP today. HINT: There are two sides of the ledger. SECOND HINT: A lot of spending is nondiscretionary. Put 'em together. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (705198)	3/21/2013 4:04:43 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1572921

CJ, since you continue to move the goal posts, let's try simple math. You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means. In what way have I moved the goal posts? [You are fine with deficits representing 6.7% of the GDP today, but you weren't fine with deficits representing no more than 3% of the GDP back then. Because this is a meaningless metric if you don't take the state of the economy into account. Which you don't do because it renders your argument meaningless. This isn't an excuse, but using the data in an appropriate way. Again, deficits that grow faster than the economy are not good when the economy is ok. They are when the economy is in recession and are traditionally done because it helps the economy get back on its feet. Heck, even Reagan did it to boost the economy. Where he erred was to accelerate the deficit spending after the economy recovered. Which led to the debt ballooning.