SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MSI who wrote (402)11/13/2002 8:46:05 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7936
 
They certainly seemed vastly more engaged than the current crew, news conferences answering actual questions, more attention to budgets, and more rapid responsiveness to corporate and political matters.

You are confusing "engaged" with "hyping bogus successes". There was no more "engagement" on the part of the previous administration than there is the current one. The stark reality is that business cycles happen, and the particular administration in power at the time is at the mercy of the business cycle. While presidents can affect the economy on the margins (mostly through pushing a tax agenda, the way Bush did), it is largely out of their control.

Also, SEC chief Levitt seemed much better than Pitt, more honest and thorough, in spite of Congressional pressure on him to abandon his reforms.

I'll reiterate. The ONLY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who acted improperly in the Enron situation was Rubin, who attempted to get the current administration to fraudulently intervene.

If you have some suggestion that Pitt acted improperly, let's hear it. I'm not suggesting Pitt was the right guy for the job -- clearly, Bush didn't feel he was -- but there is no evidence of improper conduct as you seem to suggest.

The answer IMO is "yes", but we have no sponsor of such a position, since the Democrats have abdicated and we're run by the GOP versus nobody.

What policy change would you recommend?