On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:34:43 -0700, (Thom Stewart)
wrote this crap:

AS,

Are you talking about "Read My Lips" Bush?? I'm 78 years old and in my
Lifetime it has always been a Democratic Government that has lead the
country's economy back to sound financial stability.

Is that what you call socialism?






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

No. It's called intelligence... something you lack.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:34:43 -0700, (Thom Stewart)
wrote this crap:

AS,

Are you talking about "Read My Lips" Bush?? I'm 78 years old and in my
Lifetime it has always been a Democratic Government that has lead the
country's economy back to sound financial stability.

Is that what you call socialism?






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Marion Clover Hooper" wrote
Ya think that in the 1940s, when "war bonds" were being sold in every
movie theater and post office in America, and there was strict rationing
of butter, meat, gasoline, and rubber, that maybe the federal deficit was
a bigger problem for Americans back then?

No, for several reasons you choose to ignore. First, we owed that money to
ourselves via the war bonds you mention, and paid the interest to oureslve,
not foreign bankers. Second, we were paying much of the war cost as we
went. That's why there was rationing. BTW you forgot sugar.

..... You're an idiot or a liar if you don't realize
something that obvious. Raw numbers are what the Bush-haters use to trick
the gullible, but it's a completely dishonest way to measure the deficit.

Talk about gullible and dishonest. You'd rather compare deficits as a
percent of depression-level GDPs to boom GDPs than use dollars? But even
percentages prove that Reagan ran up, and Bush is running up far bigger
deficites than any Democrat since WW2. RR borrowed from international
banks at usery so he could throw a big party for the Homer Simpsons among
us - a party that made him immensely popular with folks like you -but it's
hardly what I call fiscally conservative - I call it FNA irresponsible!

The fact remains that we went from a 2.5% surplus to a 4.5% deficit in
Bush's first 4 years! But next year's gonna be better? Bwahahaha! Only is
we put Bush in the unemployment line.


1930 - 2005
FEDERAL DEFICITS(-) AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP

1930 0.8
1931 -0.6
1932 -4.0
1933 -4.5
1934 -5.9
1935 -4.0
1936 -5.5
1937 -2.5
1938 -0.1
1939 -3.2
1940 -3.0
1941 -4.3
1942 -14.2
1943 -30.3
1944 -22.7
1945 -21.5
1946 -7.2
1947 1.7
1948 4.6
1949 0.2
1950 -1.1
1951 1.9
1952 -0.4
1953 -1.7
1954 -0.3
1955 -0.8
1956 0.9
1957 0.8
1958 -0.6
1959 -2.6
1960 0.1
1961 -0.6
1962 -1.3
1963 -0.8
1964 -0.9
1965 -0.2
1966 -0.5
1967 -1.1
1968 -2.9
1969 0.3
1970 -0.3
1971 -2.1
1972 -2.0
1973 -1.1
1974 -0.4
1975 -3.4
1976 -4.2
1977 -2.7
1978 -2.7
1979 -1.6
1980 -2.7
1981 -2.6
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1987 -3.2
1988 -3.1
1989 -2.8
1990 -3.9
1991 -4.5
1992 -4.7
1993 -3.9
1994 -2.9
1995 -2.2
1996 1.4
1997 -0.3
1998 0.8
1999 1.4
2000 2.4
2001 1.3
2002 -1.5
2003 -3.5
2004 -4.5 (estimate)
2005 -3.0 (estimate)

"Bob Crantz" wrote
The more money I keep, the less the
government caN SPEND ON NONSENSE.

Reagan and Bush proved that idea false - they just keep on borrowing and
spending no matter how much or little you keep.