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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (28803)	1/20/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 67261

Based on all those bad things that happened after 88 it must be that Bush screwed up even more the mess that Reagan left him. Dukakis would have done better and we would be looking forward to another 6 years of the Clinton prosperity. Probably not though; those wonderful piilars of society, Barr, Hyde, Burton and Livingston would have gotten Dukakis for inappropriate helmut wearing after they found out his sex life was appropriate. Regards, Don

To: John Lacelle who wrote (28803)	1/20/1999 3:46:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 67261

John, you pose some interesting questions. But you presuppose that the economy would have been the same as it was under Bush.To this day I believe GB's handling of the Kuwait invasion was the best anybody could have done. None the less his interest in handling the economy was non existent.You make the assumptions that every thing would have been the same if Clinton had been elected in 1988. I'm afraid that's what we are debating here. I believe the end of the defense area could have been an enormous plus for the economy.In fact I think it has been. Perhaps If GB had acted decisively things would have moved along faster.Clinton has had the interest in the economy. He has managed to push through NAFTA even without the support of his own party. Admittedly with the support of the Republicans in Congress. None the less this is something RR and GB could not do. I would speculate that GB may have cut taxes in the early part of this expansion possibly causing an overheating of the economy . So I might give BC credit for what he has not done as well as what he has done. I believe he would have lived up to the challenges of the 1988 economy as well as he had to the economy that he inherited. pez