Kevin Singleton wrote:
: a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
: good for us?

Okay, say it means that. Then the government can either (a) return it to
the taxpayer, or (b) use it to pay for good things.

Consider the alternative. The government spends *trillions* more than it
takes in in revenue, as it is under Bush's policies and proposals.

In that case, there is no koney to either (a) return to the taxpayer, or
(b) spend on good things.

How can anyone think running huge deficits is a good thing? I'm old
enough to remember when the GOP at least pretended to be the party of
fiscal responsibility.

: b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue them,
: next time? How is that bad for us?

Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.


: c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
: the responsibility of employers?

That's a pathetic dodge.

If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
months.

What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing. And the
mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.


: It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
are anything other than a complete disaster.


-- Andy Barss