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 (605065)	3/24/2011 4:39:11 PM
From: TopCat	Respond to of 1579907

Pretty good summary....

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (605065)	3/24/2011 4:44:29 PM
From: Alighieri	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1579907

Inode, I have no doubt that Bush's actions prevented further acts of terrorism against America. Iraq became a quagmire after a while, but then Bush focused on cleaning that up and leaving things relatively stable there for Obama. Pray tell, how did iraq prevent further acts of terror against america? ...but mediocre domestic record. LOL...I wonder if a dem with the same record would get a lollipop like "mediocre" from you...you are turning into a comedian grasshopper. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (605065)	3/24/2011 5:03:24 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579907

>>> The prescription drug benefit was probably a good thing for seniors, but it also reinforced the two biggest entitlement programs on the federal budget, Social Security and Medicare, and ensured that federal spending will forever spiral out of control. Well, Part D showed it could be done. Unfortunately, you are correct -- the Left no sooner saw the benefit was working in amazing fashion, before they corrupted it as part of "health care reform". And now, it will be destined to failure like Medicare as you said. I have very mixed feelings about Part D, but the country as a whole DID get "more bang for the buck" until the libs got hold of the program and ruined it. The program would likely have come in under 350B for 10 yrs; now it will be 3x that. But it did allow drug prices to be negotiated down, a fact about which liberals are still in denial. Katrina was handled exactly as it should have been. FEMA was never supposed to be a first responder and it would have been a mistake for the feds to set the precedent of stepping into that role against the wishes of the state governor. Blanco flatly refused to allow Bush to act, and for him to have done so could have led to a constitutional crisis in the midst of the disaster. During the meeting on AF1, Bush called Blanco to the back of the plane and said, "You need to provide this authorization NOW." She refused. It was on her. 100%. >> Then there's the collapse of real estate and the financial institutions, which not only happened under Bush's watch, but also arguably happened thanks to policies that were endorsed by Bush just as much as they were endorsed by Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank. Totally disagree. Bush policy did NOT have the slightest to do with this crash, and in fact, three years earlier Bush tried to get Congress to act to head the problem off and the very Democrats you mentioned refused, claiming there was "no problem". >> Strong foreign policy, but mediocre domestic record. GWB did everything humanly possible to deal with the democrats. Any other Republican is going to face the same problem going forward. As we saw last year, Democrats are suicide bombers who will do anything to stop a moderate agenda. I cannot imagine any Republican president who could have more success against a bitter, partisan left wing.