Hawke wrote:

It's like which would you rather have dumb or dumber?

I'd rather have dumb. The Democrats are even dumber. But
then, being dumber, they can do less damage. Unless they
get control of the tax policy. Then they can really screw
things up.

I don't know, can anyone do worse than going bankrupt? If the republican's
defense of a ruinous tax policy is that the Democrats would make an even
bigger mess of things than we have, then they are in a very bad way. Six
years of a tax policy that takes in far less in revenue than is going out
in expenditures leads to only one place, insolvency.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all in the '60s. Didn't happen.

So far it's put us
trillions more in debt than when Bush started, hardly a surprise for
anyone that knows the first thing about taxes. Thinking that continuously
taking in less than one spends will lead to a surplus shows a definite
lack of intellectual ability, maybe even to the point of abject stupidity.

Tax and spend, borrow and spend, nobody wants to address the "spend" part.

Whether Bush is dumb or dumber than the Democrats is beside the point. The
point is that what he promised his tax cuts would do has not happened, far
from it. To continue to follow policies that are proven failures is
something only dumb or dumber would do. Hopefully, we are smart enough not
to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different
result.

You have to be very young.

Which means the next time we won't follow misguided tax policies
like Bush's.

No, we'll follow some other equally misguided tax policy.

Which history has shown do not work. Instead, we'll take our
chances with someone else, someone not like those in charge now, who don't
know what the hell they are talking about.

If you want to see politicians who actually know what they are talking about
the only way to do that is to sew all their mouths shut.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)