Deja deja vu all all over again
I understand the initial premise, although incomplete...
"In 1999 the government -- for the first time -- had a surplus larger than the Social Security surplus, meaning the surplus was larger than the payrolltaxes collected but unspent on Social Security..." This sentence should read "for the first time since the great depression and the socialist notion of a "great society"" Right?
It further states "Then President Bush was elected and persuaded Congress to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut,..." This should actually read, "Then 49,000,000 + voting Americans put Bush in office because they wanted a smaller government". NOPE, the author wouldn't want to admit that the country was evenly divided this last election between the concept of capitalism or a welfare state... Nope, we the friggin people are never to blame are we?
It further states, "Democrats denounced the move as a budget gimmick and said it could not obscure the real difficulty the White House was having keeping its pledge not to touch the Social Security surplus." Which should read, " the Democrats, after 60 years of such accounting tricks, denounced..."
etc... etc... etc...
From that biased nonsense you conclude:
"So, in true Republican-Reaganesque style, if I screw you out of $5.00 and some time passes, then I spend that $5.00 on something, I can [SIC] honestly claim not to have spent *your* $5.00.
Orwell was an optimist. You know, it seems to be taking lessor and lessor intervals for Republicans to run through money."
WTF? You're right... It's a broken record... Aristotle would be proud...
