Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <3965eb5d.0409052110.bcefb99@posting.google.com>,

"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message

news:<chdppa$d0q$1@news.netins.net>...

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:j3lkj01k6d9nk0ubmraahmts4mkj71taij@4ax.com...

On 4 Sep 2004 14:56:20 -0700,

raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message

news:<6skhj0l0orvogln641skq2em0gr18b2cr0@4ax.com>...

On 3 Sep 2004 08:44:38 -0700,

Liberals are more likely to be single.

Citations?

much of the resistance comes from
parents who are horrified over the grotesque burden of debt that

this

profligate fool is passing on down to the future --

Like the debt Reagan passed to us? Yea, that was really troubling
during the Bush and Clinton administrations, wasn't it?

Yes, it was. Thankfully, Bill Clinton got rid of it,

How did Bill Clinton get rid of it?

By exercising fiscal prudence, something Reagan and Bush senior
apparently never heard of. Did you sleep through the 90s?

To be fair, Raven, I think quite a bit of credit should go to the

economic

growth of the 90s. The stockmarket boom not only made people fortunes,

it

made for big tax revenue increases. Everyone was happy with that. I
certainly don't mind paying taxes when I am making easy money. It's a

shame

the Bush Administration decided they had to pay off their supporters

with

big tax cuts right when the economy was turning the other way. Then

9-11 event really tanked the stock market, creating a tax revenue

Bush didn't let that stop him from paying off, though. Now we have

deficit

spending rather than 'pay as you go' that the Republicans are always

talking

about being for, but only after they get their money back first.

You're funny. You understand that a booming economy fixes the ills of
the deficit then you turn around and miss the fact that putting more
money into the economy makes it boom.

The poor and middle class would have spent more

How many new jobs would the poor have created?

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <3965eb5d.0409052110.bcefb99@posting.google.com>,

"MrD" <nachobiznez@all.com> wrote in message

news:<chdppa$d0q$1@news.netins.net>...

"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:j3lkj01k6d9nk0ubmraahmts4mkj71taij@4ax.com...

On 4 Sep 2004 14:56:20 -0700,

raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message

news:<6skhj0l0orvogln641skq2em0gr18b2cr0@4ax.com>...

On 3 Sep 2004 08:44:38 -0700,

Liberals are more likely to be single.

Citations?

much of the resistance comes from
parents who are horrified over the grotesque burden of debt that

this

profligate fool is passing on down to the future --

Like the debt Reagan passed to us? Yea, that was really troubling
during the Bush and Clinton administrations, wasn't it?

Yes, it was. Thankfully, Bill Clinton got rid of it,

How did Bill Clinton get rid of it?

By exercising fiscal prudence, something Reagan and Bush senior
apparently never heard of. Did you sleep through the 90s?

To be fair, Raven, I think quite a bit of credit should go to the

economic

growth of the 90s. The stockmarket boom not only made people fortunes,

it

made for big tax revenue increases. Everyone was happy with that. I
certainly don't mind paying taxes when I am making easy money. It's a

shame

the Bush Administration decided they had to pay off their supporters

with

big tax cuts right when the economy was turning the other way. Then

9-11 event really tanked the stock market, creating a tax revenue

Bush didn't let that stop him from paying off, though. Now we have

deficit

spending rather than 'pay as you go' that the Republicans are always

talking

about being for, but only after they get their money back first.

You're funny. You understand that a booming economy fixes the ills of
the deficit then you turn around and miss the fact that putting more
money into the economy makes it boom.

The poor and middle class would have spent more

How many new jobs would the poor have created?