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: Road Walker who wrote (278219)	3/8/2006 5:46:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572523

I can see the benefit of having different parties control different parts of the government, but instead of "incremental (usually positive) change I think its often incremental usually negative change. The only possible benefit being that incremental negative change might be worse than a more extreme negative change. you should admit that from a libertarian perspective government under Clinton was better than government under Bush. In terms of government spending yes, but I'm not sure how much of that is do to the difference between Clinton and Bush and how much is due to other factors, for example congress acting differently (a lot of the Republicans where highly charged with the idea of rolling back spending or at least slowing its increase when they first got a majority, now they love the trappings of power, and all their lobbyist friends more), and the end of the Cold War helping Clinton to cut spending. Even if I give all the credit for the differences in spending to Clinton, there are other negative things about the Clinton administration, for example a large increase in regulation, and the attempt at "Hillary Care". In any case neither Bush nor Clinton (at least not Bill) will be running in 2008. Maybe we can revisit this discussion when we know who the two candidates will be. And when Clinton said "the era of big government is over", I think he really meant it. I don't see how he could say it would either being insensible or dishonest. Edit - And if Bush said the same thing he wouldn't be both sensible and honest either. Even if Reagan had said it, it wouldn't have made much sense. Tim