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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (8246)	12/6/2001 7:52:20 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Let me finish my thought. For example, once the numbers are revised, it turns out that the average growth rate during the Clinton Administration was only .39 greater than Reagan's (3.75 vs. 3.36), even though there was a recession early in Reagan's term to drive out stagflation. Federal receipts averaged less than 1% more (19.11 vs. 18,16). The average poverty level was only .39 less under Clinton (14.08 vs. 13.71) At this point I think you're saying that the economic benefits between the two Administrations are marginally different. Small percentage differences that are accountable by random variations...no one could possibly manage to .39% accuracy. and once one takes into account what was essentially a Carter recession, the numbers actually favor Reagan. It's easier to argue in the other direction. If there is a recession in play then it's easier to generate a higher growth rate because the economy will naturally cycle. Additionally, what is not taken into account is the size of the debt and subsequent deficit spending, which have long term negative effects on balancing the budget and providing government services. The debt must be serviced. So Clinton's years were saddled with a significant liability in servicing the debt [accrued by Reagan] jttmab

To: Neocon who wrote (8246)	12/6/2001 8:04:45 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

As far a Bush's original budget proposal goes, I hope you are not arguing that he should be held accountable for not anticipating the meltdown in the economy, or the shock of the September attacks. Even if one can argue that the budget was optimistic,... He gets a free pass on Sept 11, but that only accounts for 15% of the difference, between the original proposal and today's estimate. He doesn't get a pass on optimism or not anticipating the meltdown in the economy. The signs were well in progress at the time the budget was generated. The quarterly numbers just hadn't filtered through the system. He knew, as well as, the budget committees did that the numbers were fantasy. It was a budget game that Reagan developed and Bush Jr. took it to new levels. jttmab