wrote in message

You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks.

Now there's a bit of irony! I recall thirty-odd years of responsible folk
of all stripes making the same suggestion to one Dem-controlled Congress
after another, only to be brushed off with some condescending patter about
meaningful and necessary social programs.

Now the foe is on the other shoot.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:19:34 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


wrote in message

You guys want to cut the federal budget deficit? Stop spending money
like a bunch of drunks.

Now there's a bit of irony! I recall thirty-odd years of responsible
folk of all stripes making the same suggestion to one Dem-controlled
Congress after another, only to be brushed off with some condescending
patter about meaningful and necessary social programs.

Now the foe is on the other shoot.

That's a myth.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

"thunder" wrote in message

That's a myth.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Talking about the deficit (which we were) and talking about the national
debt are different, albiet interrelated, things. Also, try an unbiased
source - - you may get a more balanced view.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:45:19 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

That's a myth.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Talking about the deficit (which we were) and talking about the national
debt are different, albiet interrelated, things. Also, try an unbiased
source - - you may get a more balanced view.

Balanced view? I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years. Now that would take a real spin-master.

"thunder" wrote in message

I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years.


Dealing with a large budget deficit, and wreaking grievous long-term harm on
the country, are not necessarily one and the same. There have been
Presidents and Legislatures who have created little or no deficit, yet
harmed the economy and the society through $billions worth of wasteful,
pointless, non-productive, failed programs designed only to placate some
group of whining potential voters.

I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years.



John Gaquin wrote:
Dealing with a large budget deficit, and wreaking grievous long-term harm on
the country, are not necessarily one and the same.

Spoken like a true conservative

... There have been
Presidents and Legislatures who have created little or no deficit, yet
harmed the economy and the society through $billions worth of wasteful,
pointless, non-productive, failed programs designed only to placate some
group of whining potential voters.


For example, the Faith-Based Initiative which is a gov't hand-out (which
BTW has never been audited AFAIK) to churches, so they'll harangue the
flock to vote Bush/Cheney?

Maybe you can come up with some other examples.

It certainly causes long-term harm to the nation & to the economy to
hand out billion$ worth of wasteful, pointless, non-productive, failed
rpgrams designed to placate lobbyists who've donated heavily to certain
campaign funds.

DSK