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: RMF who wrote (787335)	6/3/2014 2:17:31 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576949

>> He was dealt a GREAT hand. Going in he had SURPLUSES... He had "projected" surpluses, and I can assure you there is a great difference between that and the real thing. And that was as of time he took office. In the ensuing months, there was a recession that began in Mar'01. If you didn't watch 9/11 and comprehend the economic damage that was done, you weren't thinking. I envisioned the economic damage being a major component of the atrocity. That recession ENDED in Nov'01, due in no small part to Bush's handling of the crisis. While it took another two years to really get back on our feet economically (due to Bush tax cuts), the economic situation was mitigated by actions Bush took. He doesn't get a lot of credit for that in the media, but that's reality. The '03 tax cuts are what really turned it around, and we got four years of reasonably good growth out of it. The Clinton "surpluses" are pretty over-rated, because they were never going to materialize, even had 9/11 not occurred. We did not have ONE YEAR of true surplus, although we got close one year. I continue to believe he was an excellent president in most respects. Had Clinton been there, or Obama, we would have come out in far worse shape, and that is the metric I think you have to use.