This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So you're saying the Dems are worse, but because you don't expect anything better from them, you're voting for them. Huh.
What is truth?
What I've been trying to argue is that I think revenue is due for a significant increase for systemic reasons. I thought you had written that you didn't expect revenue to change much comparing now to the future. If what you were saying was you didn't expect revenue to change much comparing future under Obama to future under Romney, then yes, I think we agree.
uh, yeah. I guess. At least they won't disappoint.
no, I was clear that they have not lived up to those expectations since forever. That was what "ought to be" not what is.
Yes, the second is what I was saying. So to me any substantive differences between the two candidates are likely to be on the spending side of the ledger.
Nope. Think late 1970, early 1971. It's from a mega hit rock opera.
That would be rather difficult to explain, since you didn't - my post #149 was clearly a direct response to Old Pio (quoted him, even!) and had nothing to do with you. So put your huffiness back in its box.
I don't think either Romney or Obama will cut the budget to the point where it's on a more sustainable trajectory, but I think that with Romney there is a little more chance of making some amount of headway, if for no other reason than there are Tea Party folks and others (like Jeff Flake from AZ) that will push the spending issue in a way it won't get much push on the Dem side if they are in power.
One more hint -- Tim Rice and ________________
