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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mst2000 who wrote (124995)	2/1/2001 9:36:31 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"but the strong economy, for which Clinton deserves some (I never said all) credit contributed greatly " I never stated that he didn't deserve any credit. I don't want to debate who's responsible for what part of our economic history, but I do prefer repub fiscal policy over the dems. They (dems) seem hell bent on the "fact" that they know how to spend taxpayer's money better than the taxpayers do. Their message belittles the class that they claim to help (which doesn't help, btw) while they villianize a large portion of successful people (hollywood types excluded). Class warfare is not the proper tactic in our day and age. Wow, super cynical view of GWB and the recount. You seem quite on top of the details but I think your view of the recount is dead wrong. As you may or may not know, I like to debate this topic. If you are interested I am curious about how you support that he used "James Baker to implement scorched earth legal tactics to shut down manual recounts that were entirely legal and proper under Florida law". I'm particularly interested in how you justify their legality. Regarding Ashcroft, I hope you will judge him by how he does. The dems seem to like to trash people before they have even done anything wrong (the ends justifies the means I guess). Politics is pretty dirty on both sides I agree, but if the only stuff they can find from his whole career are two people with different idealogical backgrounds that were on the other side of one of his votes I'd have to say that is a pretty clean record. As the AG and Governor of Missouri and as a U.S. Senator I would think there would be jillions of non-controversial good decisions, right? Point being, don't you look better if you don't trash him, give him a chance, then if he fails you can string him alive. I think they are more worried that he will do good. I know ideology is a part of politics, but the message the dems are sending is that we don't like his values, so he probably wont uphold the law. That's a stretch imo. Regarding your final points. 1) Bush IS relatively to the center, imo. Not as close to the center as Bill, but he's not Jesse Helms. The praise he is getting from some demo bigwigs (like Ted Kennedy) is very impressive. George Miller is getting along with him famously and is working with him on the education issue. If more of the dem leaders respond that way you may be in trouble (since you seem to want him to fail). 2) EIGHT YEARS it is. We'll have a better feel for this in about a year and a half. Scott

To: mst2000 who wrote (124995)	2/2/2001 8:22:13 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

PREZ OK WITH PROBE OF BILL'S MEGA-RENT Friday,February 2,2001 By DEBORAH ORIN, LOIS WEISS and SUSAN EDELMAN President Bush gave a green light yesterday to a congressional bid to block Bill Clinton's plan for a pricey New York office - but Clinton's spokesman said the feds will just have to "squeeze out" the extra bucks. "The president understands that it is the purview of Congress to be responsible for all appropriated items," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer. "He understands that Congress will look at it." Bush is not taking a position in favor of, or against, the lease, Fleischer emphasized. Clinton initially requested just $57,000 for office rent for July to September this year, based on an estimated annual cost of $228,000. But he decided he likes the swanky Carnegie Hall Tower's 56th floor, with an annual rent of between $665,000 and $700,000. Asked where the rest of the money would come from, Clinton spokesman Jake Siewert said that's up to Uncle Sam. "It's just going to have to come out of other parts of the budget," he said. "They'll have to squeeze out the additional cost of that rent." Critics have complained that Clinton's proposed rent is more than the $624,000 the government spends in office rent for all four other living ex-presidents combined. Siewert noted that Ronald Reagan's $285,000 digs in Century City, Calif., cost nearly three times as much as Jimmy Carter's $93,000 office in Atlanta, Ga. "No one cared. Why do people care about this one?" Siewert asked. "Why should this president be treated differently than any other president?" But Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) is trying to block the move. He sent a letter yesterday asking the General Services Administration not to sign the lease for the fancy office, which has breathtaking views. In his four-page letter, Istook told the GSA the high rent could run the former presidents' fund into the red and force the agency to transfer money from other accounts without approval. He also questioned why the original figures for Clinton's rent presented to Congress weren't revised, "even though the former president and, perhaps, the GSA likely knew by December that the proposed rent would exceed the amount specified in the [appropriations] bill." There is no legal limit on how much the government can spend on offices for former presidents. The appropriation for all ex-presidents' office expenses, including staff and supplies, is about $2.5 million for fiscal year 2001. The Post reported Sunday that taxpayers could be socked with a $665,000 bill for the 56th floor of the 60-story high-rise next door to Carnegie Hall on West 57th Street. A Clinton spokesman later estimated the rent at $665,000 to $700,000 a year, close to $90 a square foot. nypost.com