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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: johnsto1 who wrote (2277)	11/26/2000 5:08:40 PM
From: Tom D	Respond to of 3887

(Skip this one, please)

To: johnsto1 who wrote (2277)	11/26/2000 5:18:03 PM
From: Tom D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Lets not rewrite history. Clinton had a lot to do with the balanced budget. Bob Woodward"s book "The Agenda, Inside the Clinton White House" is a masterpiece. It gives an insider's view of the first 100 days of Clinton's first presidency. Back in March 1993 Clinton reluctantly (even bitterly) acquiesced to the recommendations of his economic advisors and withdrew many of his planned pet spending projects because they would have perpetuated the deficit and high interest rates. Clinton got a budget with modest spending increases passed. He won the confidence of the bond market, and interest rates fell, decreasing the interest payments required for the federal debt. These lower interest rates made corporate borrowing easier and the economy flourished. The high inflation and high unemployment of George H Bush were tamed. Congressional republicans also deserve a lot of credit. But in fairness, Clinton made a crucial first move. Had he implemented a big-spending agenda, it would have been ruinous. Also, don't forget his support for NAFTA later on, which helped lower inflation, to the detriment of unionized labor. It was a combination of a fiscally moderate Democrat president along with the the Republicans that improved things even more in 1995. I will concede that the process was adversarial. But to attribute the outcome of a dielectical process to only one of forces is simply not correct. Check out Woodward's book from a public library if you don't believe me. Tom D