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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (13896)	1/12/2005 6:32:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

When people talk about what "Clinton left" to Bush, the surplus matters above and beyond all else. There were bad markets in clintons time too- 94 for example was a bad year (or what I considered to be a bad year until I saw the Bush markets)- but the markets came back. The 2000 "correction" was just that, same as any other, severe sure just like the hot stocks in 85 like apple who fell to 1/5 their prior value after the PC boom. But the issue is, when the markets corrected in the Clinton era, could stocks get back up? YES. The clinton markets were great and 2000 was ok. The surplus was fantastic. Bush blew through it all, in a torrent of death and pork. Now, that our dollar is pathetic and the perception of the USA worldwide is so bad, nobody wants in our markets. For Bush, we get no recovery. The good news is, in 08 when Bush is finally gone, we'll have good markets again. 3 years to wait.