Don't play 'draw the implication' with me. Your claim was absurd, and my pointing out the absurdity of that claim means nothing about what claims I believe.

"a Dem Congress would have rejected Hillary's health care plan or perhaps you think it wouldn't have busted the budget.[?] "

I think neither nor.

Had... could... possibly... whatever. If I were a purple-and-plaid dragon I might be able to fly. But I'm not.

The point I'm making is I don't know if a Dem congress would have passed HillaryHelathCare, and I have no idea what the real impact on the real budget would have been in whatever revised form that might possibly have passed. Nor do you, nor does anyone.

However, THIS GOP congress passed the Perscription Drug Plan, recall, on top of an already wrecked and bankrupt budget. And this fact does not require a crystal ball and a third eye to see clearly.

"The health care plan is just one piece of Dem legislation that never happened. There were many other spending bills that never came to pass."

Yes, and so what? Your point? (Don't have one?)

"If we had been under a Dem congress with Bush do you think Bush would have spent more or less. Some market and economy experts feel that the best of all worlds for the economy is a congressional majority in opposition to the President, be he either party."

Well, aside from the fact that this is another counterfactual, I CAN say that its difficult for me to envision how ANY congress could have put us further in debt- even if everyone wore a dunce cap (wait a moment, turn on CSPAN...).

"Surely you can grasp the point of this. I refuse to believe that you can not understand that an opposition congress would confound the legislative ambitions of a president. The opposite is also true. Therefore you have less legislation passed and less money spent.
"

What I grasp is that you are trying to cast the very real and factual economic idiocy of this congress against an imaginary and wholly partisan boogeyman that doen't exist outside your fevered mind.

I will grant its possible in theory that an opposition congress would withold funds from an opposed president- but notice that there are not many cases of this being true in fact.

Reagan? Haha. Please, don't tell that one again... I might split my side.

Clinton got just about everything he wanted in new spending aside from helath care- he just was a Big Adult who knew what to do after inheriting a neo-republican economy and he didn't push for much. His one jewell (health care) got nailed- big deal. (He did such a lousy job pushing it I half believe he wanted it to die- pleasing his cinstituency while dodging a budgetary bomb.)

In fact, Clintons budgets were largely passed by your touted necessarily obstructionist opposition party. These budgets, BTW, CUT defense, CUT welfare, REFORMED welfare and CUT the size of the federal gov't (one of the only presidents that can claim that)(*)

So no, your 'common sense' theory that you just can't believe I'd be imbecilic enough to disbeleieve doesn't really hold much water. Its another one of these oft-repeated claims that sound all fine and dandy but fall apart on close inspection.

Davin L.

*: also: Put at least 70,000 (out of an intended 100,000) new cops on the street, dropped crime at a faster rate than it had been dropping before or sense, got peace in ireland, got peace in India, damn near got it in Israel.... (whew)