<The economic situation was different in Reagan's time and different in Kennedy's time. In the early 80s the country was suffering from runaway inflation but had low unemployment; today we have low inflation and runaway unemployment. The stock market didn't tank shortly after Reagan took office; it tanked after Bush took office. Reagan inheritied large budget deficits (and made them larger); Bush inherited a balanced budget (and has already created a large deficit). Etc., etc., etc

"Different?" That's the lamest dodge I've seen. I really thought you were going to throw something better. This is particularly funny when you consider how many times the 1920s and 1930s are thrown at me as arguments for liberal programs.

For the record, in 1980 the unemployment rate was 7 percent, higher than it is now, and inflation was at 10.4 percent. In December of 1980 the prime rate cracked 20 percent. In other words, a total Jimmy Carter economic hat trick. The stock market started to dive in March of 2000. Guess who was in office then. Bush inherited a budget that had been riding the tech stock market, and was on its way down when he put his hand on the Bible.

You're avoiding the question of whether CEO Bush's economic "stimulus" plan will stimulate this economy. I think you're dancing around like this because you don't have an answer. Prove me wrong.

Look, I've already gone more than halfway by accepting your "utilitarian" approach, which can be and has been used to justify pretty much every violation of individual rights throughout history.

Considering that you're the one who really thinks I need to lose more of my hard-earned income to a government that has doubled in size since 1974, maybe YOU should be the one with the burden of proof.

If things are "different" now compared to any previous administration, and no precedent is admissible, where the hell do you get the evidence that taking more money out of the private sector and giving it to the government will improve the economy? What proof can YOU come up with?