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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (859635)	5/24/2015 2:25:10 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

clinton had good years because of Reagan who had it worst than any President with that fool carter, 23% interest rates

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (859635)	5/24/2015 2:47:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

>> Financially show us a better 8 yrs of a presidency than Bill Clinton's ........ It is the thought process of a simpleton that leads to this conclusion. Eight year cutoffs are arbitrary and meaningless when presidents set policy for decades at a time, as is evidenced by the fact that Clinton's policy caused the '08 crash. Early on, the Clinton tax increases were devastating. But after he cut taxes later on and acquiesced to the Republicans demands in regard to cutting welfare, we did have a confluence of events that led to an improving economy. 1/3 of the cost reduction was directly attributable to a peace dividend that happened as a result of Reagan ending the Cold War through the military buildup and negotiating strength. But Clinton's action also was directly responsible for the crash of 2008. Clinton is probably the luckiest man in the world in that respect: he had an uneventful presidency, the economy was strong, and the downsides were delayed for the next president.