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 (190765)	6/17/2004 6:41:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577122

That and reasonable taxes, a strong market, and fiscal discipline with much reduced discretionary spending. If Clinton's tax levels where "reasonable" then so where Bush Sr's and Bush Jrs. I probably wouldn't call them unreasonable but I think they where higher then ideal even on a purely practical level. I think Clinton was more the beneficiary of the strong marker then the cause, and I think the fiscal discipline came more from the Republican congress putting a clamp on spending (too bad they don't do that now) then from Clinton's own plans, particularly if you consider the military reduction as a separate issue. However even when all of these things are taken in to account (and Bush's disadvantages of being president after a market bubble popped and having 9/11 happen) its true that Clinton exercised better fiscal discipline the Bush Jr. How come there wasn't fiscal discipline under other GOP congresses even when the president was GOP? In fact, the GOP does not have such a good record with fiscal prudence in the years since WW II. So maybe Clinton was the cause for fiscal responsibility during the Clinton years. Remember Clinton did not grow up with a silver spoon stuck in his mouth 24/7. ted

To: TimF who wrote (190765)	6/17/2004 7:15:57 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577122

re: If Clinton's tax levels where "reasonable" then so where Bush Sr's and Bush Jrs. Disagree about Bush 2. re: I think Clinton was more the beneficiary of the strong marker then the cause Agree, though he didn't hurt. re: and I think the fiscal discipline came more from the Republican congress putting a clamp on spending (too bad they don't do that now) then from Clinton's own plans, particularly if you consider the military reduction as a separate issue. No. Clinton was fiscally disciplined, he was into it as far as a balanced budget (some said to much). It takes both the Executive and the Congressional to effect fiscal discipline, because there are too many forces working against it. re: its true that Clinton exercised better fiscal discipline the Bush Jr. We agree. Even with you're multiple conditional response. It must be hard to be a conservative and admit that Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush. Congratulations on reason over dogma. John