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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (70880)	10/24/2014 3:05:06 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By greatplains_guy Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

>> railing at Obama for having higher deficits than Bush... which of course is a silly complaint (as I pointed out) because you ALWAYS run higher deficits in recessions... regardless of the factors you site. You run deficits if you choose to, and the country allowed Obama to have his say for the first couple years. He chose deficits (you remember, the wasted trillion dollar stimulus which did absolutely nothing but pay off political supporters). But you're missing the bigger point: We're six years down the road and he still hasn't managed to produce a deficit as low as Bush's worst. And CBO is forecasting a never-ending stream of higher deficits as a result of Obama policy going forward. >> The problem was Bush didn't fund is war... period. Given that the true cost of the wars was in the area of a trillion dollars over the Bush terms, that argument doesn't hold water. Everyone who knows anything about subject understands that the cause of the deficits are SS, Medicare, and Interest Expense. And now, of course, Obamacare subsidies. >> This is simple business or even household finance common sense. Apparently not; you seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept. >> The anti tax dogma of REPUBLICANS is responsible for that.. Except, as I pointed out to you, the Bush tax cuts increased revenue, substantially. As tax cuts commonly do. >> they ALSO can't see the (libertarian) viewpoint that we have simply pissed a way Trillions overseas for decades for no reason. Many libertarians do believe that (although the rational ones understand it wasn't "trillions") and most recognize the need for the Afg. war even if they disagreed with Iraq. >> At least you argue that running up debt to build roads and bridges makes infinitely more sense that THAT, economically and otherwise... I supported both wars and still believe they were the correct things to have done at the time given the information that was available (including the reasonable belief that the US would not elect an idiot like Obama to follow GWB). I have never, ever argued against spending on wars, nor would I. I think it is one of the dumbest arguments Americans have ever been sucked in by. If the nation, for whatever reason, chooses to go to war then money is no object, ever. Using your household metaphor, securing your home is the most important function and you should spend every nickel to be certain your family is safe before you worry about paying the cable bill. I have no problem with governments building road where necessary but I do believe we should rely more on user fees and perhaps even make the privatization of roadways more enticing.