tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post5702385559841360126..comments2024-03-28T07:08:58.221-04:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Wall Street Journal vs. Ron PaulTodd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-79667956123078973012007-08-18T12:04:00.000-04:002007-08-18T12:04:00.000-04:00Mr. B, I agree gridlock is one positive factor. Bu...Mr. B, I agree gridlock is one positive factor. But in all fairness, there was a huge surge in revenue in the late 90’s that corresponded with a stock market bubble, one that busted shortly after Clinton left office. Clinton didn’t spur the bubble and Bush didn’t spur its busting.<br><br>Granted, though, despite that point, there’s no denying that federal spending has gone way more out of control in Bushes tenure than it did in Clinton’s, even apart from military. Frankly, I don’t see why liberals don’t like Bush more than they do. He’s supported and signed laws on education, prescription drug coverage, and transportation that far exceed big-spending accomplishment Clinton could claim as far as I can recall.Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-85293445897945101882007-08-10T15:56:00.000-04:002007-08-10T15:56:00.000-04:00Sorry to say that the debt in Jan. 1993 was $4.2 t...Sorry to say that the debt in Jan. 1993 was $4.2 trillion. When W took over, it was $5.7 trillion, having grown at roughly 3.9% per annum during the Clinton years. Under the leadership of W and Republicans, the debt has grown at roughly 6.8% per annum to $8.9 trillion. Let’s go back to gridlock.Mr.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-28701911794687505182007-08-10T09:53:00.000-04:002007-08-10T09:53:00.000-04:00My parents also supported Perot. Kinda amusing, w...My parents also supported Perot. <br><br>Kinda amusing, what was the debt in 92, 1 or 2 trillion? It’s going to be something like 9 trillion by 2010 at current projections (likely to speed up under a Democratic party executive/Congress with socialized medicine, war against Iran or Pakistan, or both). <br><br>I think you’re right. However, I think there is a lot of cause of optimism. A cross section of any meetup group will clearly show you that the coalition of folks who’re getting behind The Message is very broad indeed. That was sort of the take away point of the NYT article, although it masqueraded as a hit piece – he may attract some crazies (who, let’s be fair, at least actually give a crap about this country and their fellow Americans), but he also attracts a lot of normal folks, people who are sick and tired of the way we’ve been consistently marginalized and ignored by the ruling elites.<br><br>The peasants are revolting, again … they better hope DC doesn’t turn into another Bastille. It very well could, given the way we’re going.brethttp://ronpaulforums.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-8901400454509848612007-08-10T09:30:00.000-04:002007-08-10T09:30:00.000-04:00ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, Time, New York Times, US ...ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, Time, New York Times, US News, World, and now the Wall Street Journal. The silence has become too deafening. Now for phase II: defamation. Warning: It won’t be easy with Dr. Paul’s squeaky clean record, guys. You may defame yourselves in the process.Johnhttp://geocities.com/johnfkosankenoreply@blogger.com