A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Illustr...

[Guest feisty1]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

>Apparently everyone has forgotten one small, tiny, teensie

>weensie thing that happened one year into Bush's term:

>

>9/11 and the War on Terrorism

 

Jr. is following the same fiscal policies enshrined by the supply-side wonks during the Reagan/Bush administrations, and those policies will have the same consequences, regardless of circumstances like the effect of 9/11 on the the current economy -- soaring deficits, soaring national debt, higher unemployment, etc.

 

>I'm sure the financial havoc that was caused by those two

>things has NOTHING to do with tax revenues taking a hit. Nope,

>no siree. Not a chance, bub.

 

Well I for one am sure that it did have an impact. But that doesn't change the fact that Jr.'s economic policy is as ass-backwards as that of previous Repbublican adminstrations in recent memory.

 

>Once again, the Left shows its total and absolute dishonesty

>in making a case.

 

Dishonesty? It is dishonest to point out that Jr., like his father and Reagan before him, is taking out a 3rd mortgage on the U.S.'s future, writing billions of dollars worth of blank checks in the futile attempt to create an empty prosperity? One that will, in the short term, enrich his cronies at everyone's expense down the road.

 

What case have you made, honest or otherwise? I see only personal attacks and issue-sidestepping from you -- granted, that's the typical Fox Network-style Republican strategy, but it would be refreshing if for once you would actually post something of substance alongside the vitriol. What Michael Jackson has to do with anything is beyond me -- I guess it's just something for you to spew since you seem to have no reasoned justifications for Jr.'s handling of the economy. It must really kill you that the bi-partisan economic policies enacted during the Clinton years actually worked, that Democrats under Clinton actually controlled their own worst tendencies to over-spend and that Republicans were prevented from running hog-wild with over-cutting. You might conveniently forget that those were among the most properous years in post-war America, but many of us won't, however much you and the Republican attack dogs try to change the subject. We've seen Jr.'s policies before, and they don't work.

 

--Michael

<N.P. "Shark Attack" - Split Enz>

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans (Ill...

 

Unca Bill, no one would EVER attack your character.

 

Some of us might, however, casually observe that you're a typical Republican (cares more about his pocketbook than his dick).:+

[bluenix]

I'm feeling helpful this evening.

 

In the illustration below, note how the summit of the Clinton surplus years towers confidently above both Bush administrations, which languish in the valleys of deficit.

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-80.jpg

 

You're welcome.