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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (160844)	2/13/2003 1:21:44 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575348

Uh ... terrorism and the economy? I don't blame Clinton for the economy. My position is that presidents have little effect on an economy, other than the occasional pushing through of tax cuts. I don't think Bush 41 should have been blamed for the recession that cost him his job (which was greatly exaggerated by Carville & Begala). I don't think Clinton should receive credit for any positive economic developments during his term. And I don't think Bush 43 caused the current problems. Basically, I believe economic cycles happen and Bill Clinton was the luckiest president ever to hold the office as far as the economy is concerned. I do blame Clinton for terrorism. Not totally, but his weakness led to our current crisis -- both in Iraq and in NK. I might add that Clinton has, this week, stated his biggest regret was not having gotten Bin Laden. Which was strange. I thought his biggest regret would have been getting caught with his pants around his ankles <g>... Speaking of former presidents, it's too bad we can't hear Bush Sr.'s side of the issues. Ford is quiet, too. The only thing I can figure is the Republican ex-presidents figure it is better to allow the current president to run foreign policy while Democrats think it is better to dabble from the post-presidency...