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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rashomon who wrote (8251)	11/28/2000 11:52:35 AM
From: sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

No disagreement. My problem with Gore is NOT his experience nor the effect his policies would have on the economy. They may indeed be more responsible -- and I think Gore would actually be less likely to sacrifice the future for the "here and now." If anything, Gore has shown he really doesn't give a hoot what people think of him. He'd likely attempt to do what HE BELIEVED would be necessary for future growth and expansion. May not be right, but I do think he'd try. Not so sure about Bush. The economy could be very rough next few years and I'm not so sure he won't "panic" into instigating a near term band-aid. Moreover, limited tax relief may not be the answer. Not so sure George W. fully appreciates this. That's where the leadership issue will be paramount. Saying you're a leader and actually BEING one are two different things. Sometimes you have to take an unpopular stance and convince the nation its for the best. IMO, Cheney could be that leader. Indeed, he wouldn't panic. Never has. Wish I could say the same thing about George W. Who knows, maybe he'll surprise me. I sure hope so.