Congress only gave Reagan 3/4 of his cuts? That sounds like pretty good cooperation to me.. Under the miracle of supply side economics, supposedly cuts weren't supposed to be needed in the first place, right? At least under the original version of the "miracle". As for revenue going up, yes, in a growing economy. Did revenues go up over what they would have been with the old tax rates? Why did the deficits explode?
As for Les being disingenuous, if it was just that one thing I wouldn't care. But it isn't. On our last exchange, I posted, in Message 7718690 , an article about the national party pushing representatives who had pledged to leave office after 6 years, in their initial campaigns in 1994, to renounce that pledge and run in 2000. It was a news story, pretty clearly sourced, not addressed to Les. Les responded with Message 7719640 . His penultimate response was Message 7717351. You think Les is "one of the better posters here", well, that's your business. He's joined the ad hominem ad nauseum crowd as far as I can see.
In case you haven't noticed, the "kinder, gentler" effort is pretty much dead. It was a good effort on your part, but it looks pretty hopeless to me. I'm sorry if you think I've been unfair to you, but I don't think I've expressed anything far from the mainstream here. The NYT Porter/Marcus article was of course pretty esoteric, but interesting and I think at least a supportable alternative view to guileless Paula Jones and her simple litigators fighting to clear her name after Clinton smeared her in the American Spectator article.
The end is near, and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing. As I said, it was a good effort trying to engage people more civilly here, but by all indications our politics will remain as polarized as ever. Time to move on, as they say, this forum seems way too poisonous for any realistic debate. |
