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: Zoltan! who wrote (165257)	7/27/2001 4:57:15 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

After some study, economic growth in Clinton's last year reduced from 5% to 4.1%. Just an honest mistake I'm sure: AP Business Govt: 2000 Economy Wasn't As Rosy WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government, in annual revisions to key economic data, reported Friday that economic growth last year wasn't as sizzling as previously thought. Those revisions showed a dramatic reduction in growth for last year from 5 percent, which had been the best showing since 1984, down to 4.1 percent, the same growth rate as in 1999. One of the main reasons: business investment in computer software was overestimated. Spending on software and equipment actually grew at a 11.1 percent rate for all of 2000, rather than the 13.7 percent rate previously reported. . . . The government also slightly lowered its previous estimates of growth for the years 1998 and 1999. The economy grew by 4.3 percent in 1998, instead of 4.4 percent. In 1999, the economy expanded by 4.1 percent, rather than 4.2 percent. http://www.newsday.com/ap/text/business/ap8.htm

To: Zoltan! who wrote (165257)	7/27/2001 5:49:03 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 769667

"Words and blather. Apparently you can't read between the lines." Speaking of words and blather, I think you've just been shown to be a fake. Don't advise anyone about reading between the lines when you can't read actual lines. My friend, you have failed to prove you claim and to compound your failure you distorted the truth (consider this a euphemism). Now to save face, you are changing the subject. "Bush won on substance .." If he won, why didn't he vote for his victory??