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: TimF who wrote (186086)	4/5/2004 5:27:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576250

" Most of the increase in spending during those years went to programs that where started by FDR or Johnson. Until recently Republican presidents hadn't push for such big new entitlements but Bush changed that. That's what I mean by "he learnt from the Democrats". " If that's true, why did debt as a percent of GDP go down steadily during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon, and Carter years. You say "if that's true..." as if one thing had a strong connection to the other. The programs where started mostly under Democratic administrations that doesn't mean they can't or won't greatly increase in cost during Republican administrations. I see........Johnson created the programs but they waited 15 years under Reagan before they decided to "explode" costwise. If you believe that, I've got some bridges for sale that might interest you. Spending for these social programs exploded under Republican administrations all while Republicans where being attacked by Democrats for their "harsh" and "mean spirited" "cuts" in social spending. Frankly, Tim, I can't help it if Reps. are not very well liked but really, that is not the issue on the table. Also Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford where Republicans. Well, that's something. Tenet said that a separate group [from the CIA] was set up and Bush followed their conclusions as opposed to the CIA. Tenet just recently testified to this arrangement and its a matter of public record. The CIA was also saying there where WMD in Iraq. Maybe, possibly......but by no means definitively. They urged caution........but there is no caution for the Bushies............they threw caution to the wind. And now we are up to our eyeballs in $h*t. If you are going to defend Bush and his policies, then be sure its on solid ground; otherwise, it looks partisan. If you are going to attack Bush and his policies then make sure you are on solid ground; otherwise, it looks partisan. I defended Bush against inaccurate charges. I was and still am on very solid ground with these defenses. If I made some of the statements that I have been accused of making or defended some of the things that I supposedly (according to posters here) defended then I would not be on solid ground but I did not. Instead I frequently get accused of posting something different then what I really posted and when I point out the difference I get attacked for "playing word games". You are not on solid ground. What you call solid ground is what others call playing semantics or word games. In fact, you are being partisan to the nth degree. If its not said exactly the way you have determined it should be said, then it is null and void no matter the circumstances. That may work for you but not for me. ted