On 16 Feb 2005 14:41:52 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The numbers are black and white, Ed. If you think you can spend allocated
funds twice, then yes, there was a surplus during the Clinton years. Me,
I don't think that it works that way.

OK, now this is the part where you go on to say that gunner's
right, it's a really really good thing that the rate of debt
increase has gone up under bush's term. Or, that the second
derivative isn't really going up at all.

Actually, no, this is the part where I say "claims that Clinton had
a surplus are a lie", which was my original point, continues to
be my point, and isn't related to what Gunner says. He's more
than capable of making his own points, and doesn't need me to
try to make them for him.

Or is this one of those "you must agree with everyone I disagree
with on everything, since I disagree with you on this thing"
assumptions? But yes, on the whole, I usually agree with Gunner.