The Wall Street Journal? Surely you jest.


Dave wrote:
Not at all. Remember, we're talking about the news staff, not the editorial
pages.


The WSJ is rather conservative, in the real sense of following
conservative principles. They don't go in much for neo-conservative
hogwash, but they lean more that way than the other. If you see "liberal
bias" in any of their articles it's because your sight is warped.



The topic under discussion is whether it has increased, not by how much.


OK riddle me this... if these wonderful tax cuts are so great for the
economy, how come most economic indicators are still either luke warm or
outright in the dumper, and the only thing you can say is that
"productivity has increased" and that really can't be proven, nor has it
had any notable effect. Now you're reduced to saying that the
"productivity increase" still counts the same if it is so small it can't
be measured, just to try and prove all those dadgum libby-rulls wrong.

You're talking through your hat. Bush's tax cuts have put millions in
the pockets of the US's wealthiest citizens, and that's about all it's
done. If you're in favor of that, then fine. Just be honest about it.



... I'm sure he would
be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up.


Why is it all about hatred for those you disagree with? That's a very
poor attitude, Dave.


Calling somebody on something when he's got his facts wrong isn't hatred.

Probably not, but going on and on about "stuck pigs" is not an example
of "calling somebody on it."


It's simply an interest in truth.

Oh yeah.

DSK