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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan3 who wrote (149633)	8/14/2002 1:24:58 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580067

Nonsense. Bush the elder courageously went about repairing the damage done by Reagan, who shattered the nations financial condition with horrific deficit spending. Clinton showed similar courage by maintaining the prudent, if somewhat painful policies established by the first Bush. Bush the younger stalled the economy by pre-announcing his awful economic policies then tanked it completely by doing what he said he'd do. I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Presidents don't spend, deficit or otherwise. Congress does. The allegation that Bush 43 had anything to do with the current economic situation is totally a Democrat political ploy. Persons who are knowledgeable about economics recognize that the economy was tanking before Bush took office. Hell, we were discussing the fact well before the election that Bush was going to get stuck with a crapping out economy, just like Bush 41 did. It is just so much luck -- just as Clinton was exceptionally lucky where the economy was concerned. Even ultra-liberal Robert Reich admitted tonight that the economy had nothing to do with Bush. This is just politics, and either you know it or you don't know crap about economics.