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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (25)	7/31/1998 8:01:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I think parallels to Nixon are appropriate. I disagree. Nixon already had problems with the wage & price freeze he enacted, the Vietnam hangover, and his CIA's questionable support of the Shah. He had the bad luck to preside over the country during a time marked by riots in the streets and sequential defeats (both political and military) in Vietnam. I think anyone in office at that mercurial time would have found it almost impossible to retain a degree of popularity with the American people. Don't forget, too, that Nixon's Democratic Congress was also obligated to enact the higher taxes and increased spending demanded by Johnson's Great Society programs. Only the holders of IBM, Haloid (later Xerox) and Eastman Kodak stock considered the economy to be good. A lot fewer folks had stock holdings, and there was no Microsoft. The ending of the Vietnam conflict was overshadowed by the Watergate scandal. Clinton has the blind luck to preside over a public with the highest disposable incomes in history. Because of Reagan's/Volker's successful fight against inflation, financing debt has become easier and we have fewer reasons not to take out second mortgages and run up the credit cards. Employment is steady (again, thanks to lower inflation and lower business expansion costs) and we are no longer quite as fearful of pink slips. Mutual funds are a part of everyone's life, and the ever-increasing monthly statements add to our confidence. Clinton has the best of both worlds; he can promise to keep expanding social programs with the taxes confiscated from working investors, knowing that the market will continue to grow as long as inflation is kept in check. Nixon's America was a turbulent nation looking for peace and an identity. Clinton's America is a nation that is the direct beneficiary of Reagan's economic policy. Both Nixon and Clinton inherited lasting conditions from their predecessors. Both of them are brilliant men and astute politicians, but I don't class either one as an effective leader. Reagan alone had the courage and the foresight to reverse the disastrous Johnson/Nixon/Carter spending proclivities. Clinton knows that people will support whoever is in office when the good times are rolling, and he's made a great deal of hay over the "balanced" budget that was refinanced with short-term bonds. Greenspan knows that if inflation ratchets up another 2%, those bonds will throw the country right into a recession as we struggle to service the debt with subsequent bond auctions. As a result of all this, the public has the perception that: 1. Jobs are steady and plentiful 2. The national budget is balanced 3. Inflation has effectively ended 4. The stock market (and our 401k plans) will only get bigger Add to the mixture the nightly news, and we can also assume that: 5. Bosnia's worries are forever solved 6. It's all about sex 7. Our biggest problems are due to El Ni¤o 8. Viagra is the best thing to happen to civilization since the alphabet. Bottom line: Clinton enjoys his popularity because almost everyone thinks we're better off than we've been in years, and nobody cares much about the implications of perjury or obstruction of justice in a case where sex is the most prominent circumstance. RS