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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1860)	8/18/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: Gwolf	Respond to of 13994

Bill Clinton has learned how a boomerang works - You throw out crap and it will return home. It's also known as Charma. Don't anyone shed a tear, he gave his opponents the fuel to throw on the fire. Gwolf

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1860)	8/18/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

What is your "evidence" to support your notion that Reagan did not understand the global economic situation? Not more of that "Reagan slept through his eight years" crap, I hope? I think his focus was "nationslistic" but with major international implications. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1860)	8/18/1998 8:20:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>Yes but the problem with Dole, and with his generation in general, >was a sense that they could not grasp the global economic environment >we now live in. Reagan absolutely didnt understand the global >economy, and Bush unfortunately was in office during the recession >and gut wrenching turnaround facing man of the old-line industries at >the time (auto, steel etc). That is why there was this coalition of >Silicon Valley executives in 1992 that very publicly endorsed Clinton >and the democratic party - highly unusual since these guys are mostly >republican - but they were just too afraid that the current leaders >were going to allow chip dumping etc. by the Asian tigers etc. Heavy industries were dying since the early 70's. Clinton's health care scheme was an attempt by old line industries, such as steel, autos, etc., and their unions to dump their retirees' into a national plan to be subsidized by the public. Many of those industries had high health care costs due to the average age of the workers. To pretend to understand the global economical environment smacks of centralized industrial planning. This approach in the USSR under the communist state and in Asia under the economic nationalism has turned out to be a failure. Clinton and Gore talk a good game. But they don't understand economics 101 based on their attempts at nationalized health care and other new entitlements. One need only look at Europe and its full employment rate of 12-15% unemployment. Th only reason the high tech executives supported him was they thought he would work on the intellectual property problem with the Asian states and on greatly increasing school budgets so they could sell computers and other goods into the educational system. The intellectual property issue was also why Hollywood strongly support Clinton.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1860)	8/19/1998 10:32:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 13994

<<Yes but the problem with Dole, and with his generation in general, was a sense that they could not grasp the global economic environment we now live in. >> I agree as regards Dole, but I refuse to generalize to as great a degree as you. There must be SOMEONE out there who can combine the experience and maturity of the WWII generation with the big-picture viewpoint you described. I worry more about the post WWII generation getting us into military entanglements than I do about them not seeing the global ramifications of policy. After all, Congress passes the laws that affect international trade, not the President. The President doesn't need to have the global economic viewpoint, but it helps if his advisors do. However, the President can get us into a war all by himself (Bush in the Iraq, Clinton in Haiti, Bosnia, etc.), even if he has to lie about it (Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin (sp?) in Vietnam. Of course, Clinton would never lie to us would he <g>? I think Americans want a monarchy, somewhat kept under control by the house of commons. Maybe not a literal king, but one person we can look to for consistent leadership. The Congress is so fragmented (and slippery) that there is no leadership. When someone tries (Gingrich, Tipp O'Neil), the "other side" villifies them to such a degree as to make it impossible for them to lead. As can be seen from the current situation (and from the Reagan investigations, and others), we are far more willing to satanize congresspeople than we are the President. If you are looking for the U.S. to be seen as part of the economic world, elect the appropriate congresspeople. The President's job is to carry out the laws and policies that Congress enacts, and to point the Congress toward where he thinks the American people want the attention.