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 (223604)	3/12/2005 11:48:02 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572460

Did Europe and the rest of the world hate us when Clinton was President? Europe and the rest of the world - except maybe the ME Muslim countries - were too busy being prosperous and making big money to hate anybody including the US back then. Because the world economy was still booming and Clinton had nada to do with that. Furthermore, how can you hate a country when its president turns it into everybody's laughing stock as the juicy events of his Lewinsky affair make the headlines? Taro

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (223604)	3/12/2005 12:00:51 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572460

Not that Bush made the best decisions, but what would you have done differently if you had a recession and 9/11 occur on your watch? I never thought you would ask <g>. O N E I would have stimulated the economy by giving tax cuts to those that needed it most. They would have spent the money immediately and boosted the economy. By giving the money to the rich, who knows how they would have spent it? Some would not have spent it all - saving it for a rainy day. Some would have spend it going on holiday abroad boosting the economy of others - but ultimately - who knows? It is all a crap shoot. But if you gave it to the poor and middle class, you know they would have spent it immediately. T W O Instead of spending the money on Iraq, I would have spent it on homeland security. I would have spent some of it making sure our airports and seaports were safe. I would have beefed up the military - adding two more divisions - and making sure they were properly equipped. I would have gone after OBL and secured Afghanistan. I would have fully enforced the no fly zone inside Iraq. I would have used airpower only (no land forces) to attack suspected WMD targets. I would have squeezed Japan and Saudi Arabia to put more money into the WOT. I would have worked harder to put Europe and our traditional allies on the same page when it came to fight the WOT. This is not rocket science.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (223604)	3/12/2005 4:52:04 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572460

Mary, That is like saying all Intel did to succeed was ride the wave. There's always the combined forces of good timing and good preparation. In the case of Clinton, it was all good timing. He became president right as Bush Sr.'s recession was ending, and he stepped down right as Bush Jr.'s recession was starting. Yes.......the longest running economic expansion since WW II. Do you have any idea how you sound? Even if what you said were true, you are expressing some of the most sour grapes to be found in two centuries. The reality is that Clinton is a brilliant man who finessed a lot of good things........a talent that the right can only dream about. By comparison, the only thing Bush has done well is implement tax cuts. ted