Inquiring minds want to know.
Ed

And I'll bet yours does, too.

My original premise was absolutely correct. Every thing I mentioned was and is factual.

For Gods sake, Bush did inherit the worlds most robust economy. You're saying he didn't?

There then followed both a tax cut primarily for the wealthy, and recession. You're saying there didn't?

The article says that Bush wants to increase the national debt limit because there isn't the revenue to cover expenses. You're saying he hasn't?

I was right in my argument that the facts couldn't be any plainer or indisputable, and still folks are denying them. One guy said there had been no recession and another said we're coming out of a recession. (Mark started to get the idea, but missed the point that the rich get much more protection from the government, by definition. More property rights are protected, by far. Rob a bank of $1,000, get 20 years after police and the FBI spend a bunch tracking you down. Mug a person, club them into insensibility, take a watch and wallet with $1,000, get probation if you can find a cop who cares enough to find who did it. The rich get much, much more.)

It's too much to expect an apology, actually I realize nothing is personal about all that. You could admit I was right, both in the original statements and the way I said they would be treated. Actually, Mark got part of it correct.

Arf (arf, arf, arf, arf)