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: Dan B. who wrote (277227)	7/18/2002 11:48:06 AM
From: rich4eagle	Respond to of 769667

""For all you've just said about corporate American expense accounts, it is still difficult to comprehend your point. I just said large business expenses can bring bankruptcy? That is a relevant point, I would think."" The point is that corporate welfare is rampant and a lot of folks feed at the trough with freebies. Thus for a flat tax to be fair, deductions should be ZERO for all individuals and corporations for everything. It would destroy the accounting and law businesses but build a stronger country. ""Re: "The numbers are the numbers you can distort them any way you wish. I posted the final tally, you choose to ignore the end results and pull intermediate data to justify failure in the great success." Intermediate data? Justify failure? Huh? I most certainly Did NOT try to justify failure, and it is difficult to call what happened to the Naz at the end of Clinton's time any kind of success. Sorry, but first of all, obviously any number you bring for Bush at this point in his term is indeed intermediate data offered by YOU(fair is fair, no?). """"""" Clinton's record on the NAZ is a gain of nearly 400% that is the final answer. I will give credit that Bush's results are intermediate and stand as we speak at about a 45% loss. Hopefully, his final result will be 10% of Clinton's but highly unlikely he will get to 0% gain. """Never-the-less, it was I who began with the point that the fall began prior to Bush. You tried to refute THAT point by offering numbers that excluded what happened at the end of Clintons watch. That, is hilarious, and you may not know it, but all fair minded people simply have to laugh at you for not conceding the simple point, when the reality of a fall from 5000 to 2700 prior to BUSH, backs me up without distorting anything what-so-ever."""" That fall was with a totally bloated market and high marginal borrowing rates. Bush has near zero interest rates working for him, his irresponsible spending program and the market shrinks away. You cannot determine the difference between great success and blowing off of excess and a total absolute miserable failure thus far. """If you are so sure(as you seem to be) that the past has no bearing on current conditions, then what the hades happened during Clinton's once current conditions, to take the NAZ down so far? Did he goof up? Did he make all the G.W.B.-like mistakes you envision now, some different ones, or what? """""""" Like I said the NAZ went 400% during Clinton's reign and he left with a budget surplus and low unemployment and crime as well........Again you say the harvest was bad because the last batch of corn died. """"""""I must add, that you call me a fool for ignoring the "results of the past 18 months," but in fact I would do no such thing. The Nasdaq fell from 2700 to 1300 something, and Bush has been President during that time, no one else. There, are you happy? I would imagine so, however, if I believe that the cause of a 2700 NAZ falling to 1300 NAZ is the much the same as the cause of the immediately prior NAZ fall from 5000 to 2700 under Clinton, it is hardly correct to characterize my opinion as "haphazard," IMHO."""""""" Valid point but the Commander in Chief is Mr. Bush, and he must take the blame for a failed economy. """""Reversal is the order of the day, when accusations of "blind Bias" are brought by you.""""""" And that is your right......let freedom ring!!!!!!!!