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 (788472)	6/8/2014 1:32:09 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB i-node Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575626

RMF, If the surplus had disappeared then how come Bush seemed to use the surpluses as a reason to cut taxes? WTF are you talking about? Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Surpluses were gone by then. Therefore, Bush lowered taxes in order to stimulate the economy. As far as the dot-com bubble, I think Greenspan was the main culprit in letting that get out of hand. Doesn't matter who was responsible. Clinton rode the wave and had no desire to slow the momentum. My main problem with Bush was his blowing TRILLIONS on Afghanistan and Iraq. All that money for two wars that left the U.S. much worse off geopolitically than it was before those wars were fought. The "TRILLIONS" is a myth. The guy who made that claim even included the financial collapse of 2008 as part of the "cost of war." Tenchusatsu

To: RMF who wrote (788472)	6/8/2014 1:39:04 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575626

>> Bush was his blowing TRILLIONS on Afghanistan and Iraq. You should at least get the figure right. It was just over 1 trillion over 8 years. Unless you buy into the liberal nutjob propaganda spread by Stiglitz.