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: tejek who wrote (418213)	9/19/2008 12:14:31 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571188

Blaming reagan for this is like blaming FDR for the excesses of LBJ and the 70s dems. Being progressive here is imperative and the republicans are the reactionaries in this cycle as they were when they opposed new deal and vilified FDR. Dems had that reactionary role for a time until clinton and the clinton dem party combines liberal ideas with conservative (small c) solutions. superneocons, super free marketeers need to look for work.

To: tejek who wrote (418213)	9/19/2008 12:23:13 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1571188

Did you look at the charts in the link? Yes. Now shift the figures by a year. Still imperfect for reasons I've pointed out again and again, but it will give a better measurement, since policies take time to be enacted and then take time to take effect. 11 Ike 1 (2.7) 12 Clinton 2 (2.6) 13 H. W. Bush, (2.5) 14 W. Bush 2* (1.5) 15 Carter (0.6) and "As President Clinton immediately preceded George W. Bush, these two Presidents are often compared economically. By the (lagged) GDP growth numbers, their relative ranking is not all that clear, since President Bush’s first term was better than the term immediately preceding it, President Clinton’s second term, and Bush’s second term is not yet over. By the lag method, his second term is not even half over. Still, President Clinton averaged 3.2% real growth compared to Bush’s 2.2% so far." Which still leaves Clinton having better stats, but "President Clinton was lucky by inheriting an accelerating economy from Bush 41,...Bush 43 was unlucky in (1) inheriting a decelerating economy from Clinton, (2) the 9/11 attacks, (3) Hurricane Katrina and some more recent ones, and..." Despite that I think Clinton deserves some credit. OTOH what he deserves credit for, is very different than what Obama has proposed or supported "Clinton championed the NAFTA free-trade agreement and signed it into law. • Clinton cut the capital gains tax significantly. • Clinton signed onto major Welfare Reform. • Clinton signed Freedom to Farm, a major cut in agriculture subsidies. • Clinton’s budgets led to the Federal government spending the smallest fraction of the economy since 1966. " You can debate how much the cuts in spending where "Clinton's" and how much they where Gingrich's", after all Clinton initially had projections for much more spending, OTOH he did sign these budgets, and had some impact in determining them. And on NAFTA he was a clear leader, not the only one, there where important Republicans pushing it as well, but he gets credit for supporting the extension of freer trade rather forcefully. (All the statements in quotes above, but not below, are from americanthinker.com , the statements not in quotes are mine, as is the statement in quotes below) As for "OTOH Reagan supported the FED cracking down hard on inflation, and paid the price early in his presidency, but it was a price that had to be paid, and by paying it, and cutting and simplifying taxes (the latter being a very rare occurrence), he set up future administrations (through Clinton) to get better official economic results. Also he helped Clinton out by building up/restoring our military, which directly (by giving us a more capable force that could survive cuts), and indirectly (by helping to end the cold war) allowed Clinton to save a lot of money on defense spending." That's hardly fiction every single point is clearly true.