more i & i

da prez, addressing the economic club of washington yesterday, still claimed he'll halve the federal deficit by 2009, in effect admitting he can't match clinton, who produced a surplus in a similar timeframe.

of course, bush's apologists can point out that clinton started with a smaller deficit, but they'll also try to minimize bush's deficit by saying it's smaller compared to the gross domestic product.

like most folk, i don't know if that's accurate or not, but i do know clinton inherited what was then the 3rd biggest deficit in history from bush's daddy and began cutting it immediately, whereas the current prez inherited clinton's surplus and gave it away immediately, tho you'd think such a devout xian would heed the bible's warning to save a surplus for lean years that inevitably follow years of plenty. [genesis 41]

i almost said it doesn't make sense, but of course it does: bush's tax cut was a clever scheme to buy votes. what makes it so clever is it cost him nothing: he didn't have to lay out cash up front as in the usual kind of vote-buying, and he wouldn't have to pay off if he lost, but he could use the US treasury to pay his voters if he won, which is just what he did with tax cuts that created huge deficits. (he couldn't renege on the tax cut: he would've lost those votes in 2004.)

of course, bush apologists can claim the tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. they know no direct proof exists. after all, 9/11 and 2 wars cost plenty, making it impossible to say what caused what.

no scheiss, sherlock! you NEVER know ahead of time what crises might arise, but you SHOULD know there WILL BE crises, so giving away the store is ALWAYS stupid!