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: Alighieri who wrote (289388)	5/26/2006 2:55:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571964

The budget was nearly balanced, but Clinton 1 - Had a congress that cared about restraining spending (yes I know the Republicans controlled congress than and now, and many of the members are the same people, but they seem to not care anymore), 2 - Was able to scale back the military because of the end of the cold war (and arguably may have scaled it back too much, witness all the claims that we should have had a bigger force in Iraq). 3 - Effectively passed a lot of the spending on to the private sector by increasing regulation to achieve his aims rather than directly increasing government spending. That having been said and considering other factors like 9/11 and Katrina, I'd still give Clinton a better grade on controlling spending than I'd give Bush, but only because Bush gets such a bad grade on this issue. the economy was firing on all cylinders The economy at that point wasn't very different than the economy today. mypetjawa.mu.nu and he was doing it with an adversarial house. Adversarial in ways that helped him control spending. They would have gone for even less spending but he managed to hurt them on that issue with the whole "shut down the government" situation.