1) I thought the term "reactionary" was descriptive of someone on your wing of the political spectrum, not mine. I was taught (by an ultra-conservative government teacher in High School - he was puzzled about where the John Birch Society went!) that reactionaries reside somewhere between conservative and fascist. Maybe there has been some redefinition since the 60s that I am unaware of?

2) my criticism included both parties. It's funny how the conservatives came out in force to attack me!

3) I prefer to use economic data to do analysis and I was wondering if either party had any to go on. I do not support any interpretation of the data because I currently have no data. That's the difference between you guys and me: I have no opinion and want more information. You have a belief and want no information.

4) It is notoriously difficult to prove the effect of a particular policy on an economy. Economies are hugely complicated things, and lots of things affect them. You cannot take two identical countries and change the policy in one and watch their economies diverge. In the real world where you can't control the experiment, dogmatic pundits on both sides always find a way to claim victory.

Phil's claim that all you need to know is that taxes were cut and revenue increased is sad, but typical of dogmatic thought.

Tony: can you steer me to the Economist article you refer to?