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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (32990)	2/19/2009 3:23:32 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Tim; They have had the White House 10 of the last 30 years, and they have controlled either the Senate or the House, or both for the majority of those years. For the majority of those years? Okay, Reagan, Bush, Bush was 20 of the last 28 years. Of the 8 years of Clinton, he had a total of 2 years controlled by the democrats. So 26 of the last 28 years were effectively under republican leadership - or a majority in Congress. Of the past 8 years, republicans held both the Presidency and congress except the last 2 years. But if you want to compare spending under Clinton to the Bush years, I'll happily take that argument on. What we are doing now is taking on a problem of such immense proportions that Obama has no choice but to try something. If republicans were in office they would do the same thing. But make no mistake - this is republicans sick baby brought on by Bush and a completely worthless congress. I agree with you that spending is out of control and could very well break the bank - but to blame Obama when the DRUNK was Bush, holds zero validity to me.